The Global Warming Discussion Assignment

Instructions:

Purpose:

The purpose of this discussion is for you to think critically about ethical and semi-metaphysical questions and why you think the way that you do and for you to argue for them. It is easy to say what you think, but it is hard to back it up in a debate. This is an extreme case, but working with it makes every-day cases easier.

The Case:

Here is an incomplete argument, with two possible ways it could go:

1. The effects of global warming will not affect me or any living person today in our lifetime.
2. The cost of preventing it will cause some suffering in my lifetime (call it growing pains).
3. If global warming happens, it will cause suffering generations down the road, far greater than those today to prevent it.

Suppose that these three are in fact true (this is totally made up by me, so don’t worry about the facts for them). Now, for these are two possible sentences we could have for the fourth line:

• (4A) Future people do not exist so they don’t count in our moral figuring. (We only have duties to existing things)
• (4B) Though future people do not exist, they will and so count into our moral figuring. (We have duties to some non-existent things)

If you think (4A) is true, this leads you, naturally, to the following conclusion:

• (5A) Therefore, it is morally wrong for us to prevent global warning as the results of preventing it will harm existing people. 

But, there is another option, if you think (4B) is true, then we have this conclusion to the argument:

• (5B) Therefore, it is morally right to prevent global warming as the results of not preventing it will harm future people far more than the results of preventing it will current people.

Tasks:

1. For your initial post, you need to:
   1. Think carefully about the above argument and then explain whether you think (4A) is true or (4B) is true. You can only choose one (as they are opposites). The point of thinking this way is to see whether we have certain obligations to people who don’t exist yet and we have no guarantee will exist. Do the interests of the existing people today matter more than the interests of future people? Should they be aligned?
   2. Say why you think that. As always with these cases, you should not say merely that this is how you feel, but rather explain why you have that feeling. 
   3. Say how you think another student may reply to your stance.
2. Reply to 2 other students in this class who have opposing views to you or take on the role as the devil’s advocate and object to them. And, if possible, avoid replying in the way that they thought someone might reply.

To Succeed:

1. Make sure you are clear about your stance, that you do not devolve into name-calling and uncivil behavior.
2. Debate and replies to replies are encouraged as this is practice for real-world debates.
3. Make sure that you have all of the above points in your posts.
4. I will comment replies if the post is very off-the-mark in the interpretation of the case, if it is unduly inflammatory, or otherwise not appropriate.

Here are the two arguments put clearly:

Argument A:

1. The effects of global warming will not affect me or any living person today in our lifetime.
2. The cost of preventing it will cause some suffering in my lifetime (call it growing pains).
3. If global warming happens, it will cause suffering generations down the road, far greater than those today to prevent it.
4. Future people do not exist so they don’t count in our moral figuring. (We only have duties to existing things)
5. Therefore, it is morally wrong for us to prevent global warning as the results of preventing it will harm existing people. 

Argument B:

1. The effects of global warming will not affect me or any living person today in our lifetime.
2. The cost of preventing it will cause some suffering in my lifetime (call it growing pains).
3. If global warming happens, it will cause suffering generations down the road, far greater than those today to prevent it.
4. Though future people do not exist, they will and so count into our moral figuring. (We have duties to some non-existent things)
5. Therefore, it is morally right to prevent global warming as the results of not preventing it will harm future people far more than the results of preventing it will current people.