Fact-insensitive thought experiments in climate ethics – Exemplified by Parfit’s non-identity problem

In Tahseen Jafry (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice. London: Routledge. pp. 42-56 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
More than some other fields of ethics, climate ethics is related to pressing real-world problems. Climate ethicists have a responsibility to be precise about the status of the problems they discuss. The non-identity problem (NIP) plays are a prominent role in the climate ethics literature. In a widely discussed statement, Derek Parfit claimed that a risky climate policy is not harmful for (distant) future people. But this ignores the “insignificant-causal-factors rejoinder”. The Parfitian assertion is still treated as serious problem to theories of climate justice in key philosophical texts, and this may mislead climate policy decision-makers. Philosophers should acknowledge that the NIP, when applied to climate change, is “just” a thought experiment and should communicate it in this way to people outside the philosophical community.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
TREFTE-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-05-15
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2019-05-15

Total views
5 ( #40,199 of 39,578 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #37,188 of 39,578 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.