The Philosophy of Climate Change

Ellen Roseman summarized a speech held at the University of Toronto by John Broome, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University in England. The topic of the speech was on the ethics and philosophy of climate change. Broome believes that people’s existence and well being is what counts morally and looks at the solutions to climate change from a consequentialist’s point of view.

The professor talked about the potential casualties from an increase of floods, droughts, and famine due to climate change. He estimated the casualties to be about a million each year if the climate becomes significantly hotter. He even mentions the possibility, although very unlikely, that human species may become extinct due to climate change. Broome sees human life as having significant moral value, which he believes should be an important factor in deciding what must be done when dealing with climate change.

The issue of climate change was approached from a consequentialists point of view by professor Broome. He compared economists with philosophers on how they make decisions. Economists use a cost benefit analysis while philosophers similarly make decision based on which would result in more good than bad. He believes that whatever decisions we make on climate change, they need to provide more positive effects on humans than negative. Broome makes the statements that “We can't judge properly what to do about climate change until we have found an answer to the question of how these future lives can be valued.” He recognizes that people’ s existence has moral value and whether their existence will yield more good or bad should govern what decisions we make about climate change.

If you were to look at this issue from a non-consequentialist’s point of view, you could argue that it is not a factor of how much good would result, but what the costs of acting on climate change would be. If cutting green house gas emissions means reducing the use of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, then that would lead to weakening many large industries, causing many job losses. This could also weaken many economies, since these industries may be heavily depended upon. Acting on climate change could have negative and immediate impact on people’s lives and well-being. From a non-consequentialist’s point of view you might choose not to fight climate change, even if in the future it will have positive effects, since the appropriate actions that need to be taken will cause immediate suffering.

Broome counts human life and future human existence as having moral value. He believes that whatever decision is made on climate change, it needs to yield a positive outcome for humans well beings. While if you were to look at it from a non-consequentialist’s point of view the actions needed to fight climate change would also cause suffering to humans which gives reason not to combat climate change.

Roseman, Ellen. "Author frames climate change as ethical dilemma - thestar.com." News, Toronto, GTA, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Canada, World, Breaking - thestar.com. 28 Oct. 2009. Web. 04 Nov. 2009. .