Copyright
Howard NyePublished On
2021-04-29Page Range
pp. 3-36Language
- English
Print Length
33 pages1. Why Should We Try to Be Sustainable?
Expected Consequences and the Ethics of Making an Indeterminate Difference
- Howard Nye (author)
Why should we refrain from doing things that, taken collectively, are environmentally destructive, if our individual acts seem almost certain to make no difference? According to the expected consequences approach, we should refrain from doing these things because our individual acts have small risks of causing great harm, which outweigh the expected benefits of performing them. Several authors have argued convincingly that this provides a plausible account of our moral reasons to do things like vote for policies that will reduce our countries’ greenhouse gas emissions, adopt plant-based diets, and otherwise reduce our individual emissions. But this approach has recently been challenged by authors like Benward Gesang and Julia Nefsky. Gesang contends that it may be genuinely impossible for our individual emissions to make a morally relevant difference. Nefsky argues more generally that the expected consequences approach cannot adequately explain our reasons not do things if there is no precise fact of the matter about whether their outcomes are harmful. In the following chapter, author Howard Nye defends the expected consequences approach against these objections. Nye contends that Gesang has shown at most that our emissions could have metaphysically indeterministic effects that lack precise objective chances. He argues, moreover, that the expected consequences approach can draw upon existing extensions to cases of indeterminism and imprecise probabilities to deliver the result that we have the same moral reasons to reduce our emissions in Gesang’s scenario as in deterministic scenarios. Nye also shows how the expected consequences approach can draw upon these extensions to handle Nefsky’s concern about the absence of precise facts concerning whether the outcomes of certain acts are harmful. The author concludes that the expected consequences approach provides a fully adequate account of our moral reasons to take both political and personal action to reduce our ecological footprints.
Contributors
Howard Nye
(author)Howard Nye is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Alberta. He works primarily in the areas of normative ethics, practical ethics, and metaethics, and has related interests in political philosophy, the philosophy of mind, and decision theory. One line of Howard's current research investigates challenges to the common assumption that life is less of a morally important benefit to beings who lack the intellectual abilities of typical human adults. Another line of his research concerns the ethics of collective action, focusing on the argument that individual actors and institutions should reduce their contributions to harmful practices because their contributions have small chances of making very important differences. A third line of Howard's research investigates what it takes for an entity to have beliefs, desires, and sensations that represent or are about the world in a sense that admits of genuine, underivative error, with applications to the sentience and mental lives of various non-human animals, intellectually less able humans, and possible future artificial intelligence systems.