As mentioned in earlier comments, here are some materials that relate to morality itself (or call it ethics if you like) and to central relationships between morality and sustainability. They can be found, with many others, on my website, www DOT ObligationsOfReason DOT com .

If you are interested, just go to the site and click on “ADDITIONAL MATERIAL” on the navigation bar on the home page. That will take you to the “Additional Material From The Author” page of the site. On that page, you’ll see links to all materials, including the five mentioned here:

The Morality of Sustainability: A DIY Exploration

To Scientifically Informed Philosophers and Philosophically Minded Scientists

“The Bridge: A-QED”

On Morality: Key Considerations and a Bridge

Illustrative Quotes

If you find those helpful, please check out the others as well.

Be Well,

Jeff Huggins

Thanks very much for your response and observations.

I’ve been thinking about this matter, a bit, and see similarities across disciplines and professions when it comes to things like this.

For example, given your observations, and mine, about the need for moral philosophers, ethicists, and so forth to engage these sorts of issues (e.g., climate change) more directly and (I would say) persistently and visibly, one could ask: “Why don’t more philosophers/ethicists remind and prompt each other more to do so?” For example, they could send messages (to encourage and prompt members of the profession) on PHILOS-L and PHILOSOP and so forth.

Yet, as with other professions, there seems to be an inbuilt human dynamic to question just about everything EXCEPT practices in one’s own profession. One gets the impression (I’ve tried it several times) that it is frowned upon to critique one’s own profession or encourage it to greater levels of activity and responsibility.

So, just as we seem to have media that don’t like to critique advertisers, and government organizations that like to be their own ethical policemen (although they let a lot pass, to mutual advantage), and The American Bar Association doing a not-very-good job of watching over the behaviors of its own members, and on and on and on, we also seem to have a community of moral philosophers and ethicists who aren’t (on average) engaging these key issues (e.g., global warming) enough AND who often don’t want to say a “peep” (especially not in public) to each other to encourage and call for each other to get much more involved.

At a “systemic” level (not consciously among individuals), there seems to be a sort of mutual resignation to a state of relative passivity.

This is, of course, “human”, and it is common to many professions. YET, in the present case, we are talking about huge issues with huge moral implications. And, we are talking about the profession that SHOULD be willing to do what SHOULD be done. Indeed, we are talking about the experts of “ought”. So, unlike the case with other professions, moral philosophers and ethicists should be willing (I would argue) to pick up themselves by the bootstraps, and to help pick each other up by the bootstraps, to get much more engaged on these pivotal issues (global warming, health care). Even if doing so is uncomfortable. Morality is often not about doing solely what’s easy, of course.

Although the largest stakes (by far) have to do with the problems themselves (global warming, etc.), there is also the matter of the credibility of the professions involved. Will the media cover global warming responsibly? Their credibility will depend on it. Will politicians come through? Their credibility will depend on it. Will the public hear loudly, clearly, and wisely from the moral philosophy community and from ethicists, regarding global warming? The credibility of those communities will depend, in no small part, on the answer to that question.

I am hopeful that more people will get more involved. But, I’m not sure about the best way to help encourage that?

Thanks again for your response.

Be Well,

Jeff Huggins

Yet, some US statesmen are trying to start that debate.

Obama at G8 conference last month: “In the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities,” regarding climate change, Obama told the leaders of 16 other leading economies, but added, “those days are over.”

Kerry at the National Press Club last month: “Only this time, it’s not just our geopolitics that are changing—but the earth itself. Global climate change poses a real and present danger of environmental destruction and human dislocation on a scale we’ve never seen.” and “But China and America—the world’s largest emitter today and history’s largest cumulative emitter—have a special responsibility. 192 nations will gather this December in Copenhagen to hammer out a new global climate treaty. Two will set the tone and define what is possible. The crucial question is: can America and China forge a partnership capable of acting boldly enough to prevent a climate catastrophe? Science tells us, the answer had better be yes.”

Gore, just about everywhere. Clintons, Waxman, Markey, many more including the Republicans who voted for W-M. A long list of books.

Professor Brown’s point stands however. The level of debate and discussion we have today is insignifigant compared to where it should be based on the ethical enormity of this crisis. His crystal clear deliniation of the ethics of our current situation are very welcome.

As promised, here are a few thoughts as follow-up to my Comment 13. (Anyone interested should probably read that comment before trying to make sense of the tidbits in this one.)

Have you ever watched ants closely? If so, you’ll know that, in a number of very important ways, they “cooperate”. They are social organisms, biologically and behaviorally speaking.

But, they don’t cooperate “for the sake of the concepts of ‘cooperation’ or ‘fairness’ themselves”. They don’t cooperate to please or satisfy some ethereal concept of cooperation. Instead, they have their cooperative faculties, tendencies and ways because those faculties, tendencies, and ways have made (and do make) a substantial contribution to the continuation of the ant life-stream (to pick a phrase) from one generation to the next generation. A biologist would say that these things contribute to ant “fitness”. Having them is more effective than not having them.

Referring back to my Comment 13, it’s important (very important) to understand that morality/ethics is about much more than fairness. Fairness is a key element, a key dynamic, in the matter, of course. But, we (humans) don’t have the concept of ‘fairness’, or faculties that allow us to understand fairness and to be fair, for the sake of a concept or word. Fairness, as part of our broader collection of social-moral faculties and dynamics, has a “reason for being”, i.e., an effective foundational function.

Consider: The following two things are dramatically different: Poisoning each other in “fair” ways; and achieving healthy sustainability together in fair ways. Although (some might argue) these two things are both “fair”, they are nevertheless very different in terms of outcome. In one case, the eventual outcome is fully contradictory to the very “point” of, i.e., to the foundational function of, morality itself. It is “anti-morality” (to put it one way), i.e., immoral. In the other case, the eventual outcome is consistent with morality, i.e., it is moral.

A classic book about cooperation is Robert Axelrod’s “The Evolution of Cooperation” (1984). Although more up-to-date papers and books have been written about the matter, Axelrod’s classic provides the basis and is a great way for interested parties to understand that there is a “point” to such things as cooperation and fairness, and that we don’t have those abilities for the sake of the concepts themselves.

On another note, I’d just like to remind people of the vital importance of “the commons” (as if I need to remind people here of that importance, rather than people elsewhere!). Yet, for the sake of completeness, I’ll mention it: The atmosphere is a commons, of course. The climate is a commons.

Poisoning a commons—altering it in a way that will have substantial harmful and destabilizing consequences—is contradictory to morality. It is unethical. This is true even if we all do it to each other in a way that some might consider “fair”: “You are messing up the commons, but so am I, so we’ll just agree to keep doing it together, come what may.”

Not only is doing so unfair, because (as has been pointed out by others) some people will actually suffer more of the harm than others, and some people contribute to the problem more than others, and some people want to address the problem, while others resist. But also—and very importantly—the net effect of the whole thing runs contradictory to the effective foundational function of morality in the first place.

If time allows, I’ll make one more comment (later) to summarize, and then I’d like to offer some resources (on the web) for interested parties to consider.

Unfortunately, as Bertrand Russell once said, “Some people would rather die than think; and many do.”

Be Well,

Jeff

Pine Island glacier may disappear within 100 years
14 August 2009
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=505

One of Antarctica’s greatest glaciers is thinning so quickly it could disappear within 100 years. This is 500 years sooner than previously estimated and jeopardises a volume of ice that could raise global sea levels by around 25cm.

First I should say to Donald (#15): excellent comment.

Then to add a few thoughts and observations . . .

First, The New York Times is not covering the ethical/moral dimensions of the matter responsibly. Online (e.g., on Dot Earth), the ethical/moral dimension is explored every once in awhile, to no clear end or actionable outcome. But, the paper itself barely peeps about the ethical/moral dimensions, except of course on the part of a few of its most conscientious and aware columnists.

The paper itself is also morally/ethically compromised, and it seems to refuse to pull itself out of that compromise. For example, if you compare the ExxonMobil advertorials, carried in the Times, and the misleading confusion they often bring about, with the Times’ willingness or unwillingness to cover those same topics in a straightforward, accurate, and responsible fashion (as evidenced by the paper in the last year), you see a problem as clear and large as the side of a big barn. So, as is often the case, for example, in order to actually achieve (or even remotely approach) genuine ethical behavior on this, a media entity (such as The Times) should not only cover the ethical aspects of the climate change problem in total, but should also live up to ethical standards itself, especially in a situation with such huge stakes.

And there seems to be another problem, in my experience: It doesn’t seem to me that the community of philosophers, moral philosophers, and ethicists is doing nearly enough on this issue, given the stakes involved. Of course, some number (it seems a small one) of moral philosophers and ethicists are speaking out and, in some cases, acting heroically. But, that number is far too small, as far as I can tell. For now anyhow, I’ll leave it at that.

Or, ideally, if you (Donald) wouldn’t mind, could you please offer your own thoughts on the level of activity you see in the communities of moral philosophers and ethicists, RELATIVE TO the level of activity that the situation warrants and calls for?

Is the problem that moral philosophers (and ethicists) are appropriately and vocally active, and insistent, and persistent, but that the media refuse to cover them, OR is the problem that the moral philosophers and ethicists are (on balance) far too silent on the matter or too shy in their efforts, OR is the problem due to BOTH of these things?

My impression is that the answer is BOTH, and both are huge problems. But, I’m open to another view and to correction.

Be Well,

Jeff