Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Climate Change | Utilitarianism | Norgaard I 342 Climate Change/Utilitarianism/VsPresentism: One prominent alternative to presentism is classical utilitarianism, an ethical framework that dates to the seminal work of Jeremy Bentham (1823)(1). According to utilitarians, social institutions and public policies should be designed to maximize total utility or well‐being in society with equal weight attached to the welfare of each and every person. Mill (1863)(2) termed this criterion the ‘greatest happiness principle.’ Singer (2002: 42)(3) discusses the implications of utilitarianism for climate stabilization policy. On the one hand, utilitarians favor an approach that balances the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, they also attach special importance to the interests of people suffering material deprivation. >Utilitarianism/Bentham, >Utilitarianism/Singer, >Presentism/Nordhaus. Climate Costs/Utilitarianism/Singer, P.: According to Singer (…) the costs of climate change mitigation should be borne disproportionately by the wealthiest members of the international community since a dollar of net benefits provides less utility to a rich person than to a poor person. For this same reason, utilitarians are especially concerned about the potential threat that climate change poses to incomes and livelihoods in low‐income, developing countries that are resource dependent and therefore especially vulnerable to changes in environmental conditions (Anthoff et al. 2009a)(4). Utilitarianism: (…) utilitarianism provides no basis for attaching different weights to the welfare of present and future generations. On the contrary, utility is viewed as equally Norgaard I 343 valuable regardless of who experiences it in either space or time (Broome 2008)(5). (…) much of moral philosophy is concerned with understanding and managing the conflicts that exist between the pursuit of self‐interest and the performance of one's moral duties. Utilitarianism approaches this problem by asserting that people's decisions should aim to maximize total utility in society without attaching special weight to personal needs and concerns. Norgaard I 344 In this sense, utilitarianism is in tension with the moral principles that support liberal‐ democratic political, economic, and legal institutions, which attach paramount importance to the extension and preservation of individual rights and freedoms. >Emission permits, >Emission reduction credits, >Emission targets, >Emissions, >Emissions trading, >Climate change, >Climate damage, >Energy policy, >Clean Energy Standards, >Climate data, >Climate history, >Climate justice, >Climate periods, >Climate targets, >Climate impact research, >Carbon price, >Carbon price coordination, >Carbon price strategies, >Carbon tax, >Carbon tax strategies. 1. Bentham, J. 1823. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: W. Pickering. 2. Mill, J. S. 1863. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son & Bourn. 3. Singer, P. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press. 4. Anthoff, D., Hepburn, C., and Tol, R. S. J. 2009a. Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change. Ecological Economics 68: 836–49. 5. Broome, J. 2008. The ethics of climate change. Scientific American 298: 97–102. Howarth, Richard: “Intergenerational Justice”, In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.) (2011): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
Norgaard I Richard Norgaard John S. Dryzek The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Oxford 2011 |
| Presentism | Nordhaus | Norgaard I 339 (Def) Presentism/Political philosophy: Presentism is a moral framework that is implicitly adopted by climate economists such as Manne (1995)(1), Nordhaus (1992(2), 2008)(3), and Anthoff et al. (2009b)(4). In this perspective, policy decisions should be based strictly on the preferences of the current generation with no explicit moral standing afforded to members of future generations. The rub is that presentism implies that the Norgaard I 340 weight attached to the welfare of future generations should be based strictly on the degree of altruism that people exhibit through their private decisions (Arrow et al. 1996)(5). Advocates of presentism attach special importance to the market rate of return on capital investment, which they argue reveals people's willingness to give up present economic benefits for the sake of their children and grandchildren (Goulder and Stavins 2002)(6). Pro Presentism/Nordhaus: Nordhaus (1992(7), 2008(3)), for example, has long advocated a presentist approach in which major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions should be deferred into the long‐run future. In Nordhaus's analysis, the future benefits provided by climate stabilization are too small to justify imposing significant short‐run costs given the degree of intergenerational altruism people reveal through their private decisions. VsPresentism: One line of critique argues that the market return on capital investment reveals the preferences that people hold regarding their own present and future well‐being, not the conceptually distinct values they hold regarding the appropriate resolution of intergenerational conflicts (Burton 1993)(8). In the economic models employed by presentists, these two behavioral motives are typically reduced to a single parameter for the sake of tractability and simplicity. VsVs: Authors such as Howarth and Norgaard (1992)(9), however, argue that this modeling approach is theoretically unsound and that fresh insights arise through the use of models that distinguish between personal time preference and intergenerational ethics. VsPresentism: (…) critics also charge that presentism involves the unjust treatment of posterity because it denies the principle that all human beings—including members of future generations—should have full and equal moral standing (Broome 2008)(10). Along these lines, Singer (2002: 26)(11) argues that the moral salience of impacts such as ‘suffering and death, or the extinction of species’ does not diminish with the passage of time. In a similar vein, Ramsey (1928)(12) argues that favoring the interests of present over future generations is ‘a practice which is ethically indefensible and arises merely from the weakness of the imagination.’ PresentismVsVs: Advocates of presentism, however, counter that the strength of intergenerational altruism has been sufficient to ensure that the quality of life has steadily improved in the centuries following the industrial revolution. If one assumes that economic growth will Norgaard I 341 continue for some time into the future, it follows that our descendants in future generations are likely to be substantially more wealthy than we are today. VsPresentism: (…) climatic impacts may be severe enough to threaten the sustainability and productivity of economic activity (Hoel and Sterner 2007)(13). This point of view is supported by the findings of Woodward and Bishop (1997)(14), Weitzman (2009)(15), and Gerst et al. (2010)(16). Pro Presentism/Parfit: More radically, authors such as Parfit (1983a)(17) question the notion that present decision makers have any obligations to future generations aside from ensuring that future persons have lives that are minimally worth living. (…) suppose that wholly different sets of potential persons would live in: (a) a low‐income future characterized by a degraded natural environment; and (b) a high‐income future characterized by a flourishing environment. Parfit's argument is that the individuals living in the degraded state would be thankful for the fact that present decisions fostered the conditions necessary for them to come into being. Steps to stabilize climate would (…) lead to a different world in which they would never be born. VsParfit: “Our obligations to future generations derive from a sense of a community that stretches and extends over generations and into the future…If one accepts the idea of a community in one generation, including the principle that this entails certain obligations to other members, then one should accept the idea of a transgenerational community extending into the future, hence recognizing obligations to future generations.” (De‐Shalit 1995: 14–15)(18). VsParfit/VsPresentism: Alternatively, Gosseries (2008)(19) notes that Parfit's argument abstracts away from a key fact of human demographics: At each point in time, the current generation of adults overlaps with its children and grandchildren whose existence and identities are fully determined. If one accepts the plausible premise that each generation of adults holds binding duties to its flesh‐and‐blood progeny, a ‘chain of obligation’ is then established between present decision makers and the unborn members of more distant generations (Howarth 1992)(20). >Generational Justice, >Climate Change/Utilitarianism. 1. Manne, A. S. 1995. The rate of time preference: Implications for the greenhouse debate. Energy Policy 23: 391–4. 2. Nordhaus, W. D. 1992. An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258: 1315–19. 3. Nordhaus, W. 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighting the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven: Yale University Press. 4. Anthoff, D. Tol, R. S. J. and Yohe, G. W. 2009b. Risk aversion, time preference, and the social cost of carbon. Environmental Research Letters 4: 1–7. 5. Arrow, K. J., Cline, W. R., Mäler, K. G., Munasinghe, R., Squitieri, R., and Stiglitz, J. E. 1996. Intertemporal equity, discounting, and economic efficiency. In J. P. Bruce, H. Lee, and E. F. Haites (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6. Goulder, L. H., and Stavins, R. N. 2002. An eye on the future. Nature 419: 673–4. 7. Nordhaus, W. D. 1992. An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258: 1315–19. 8. Burton, P. S. 1993. Intertemporal preferences and intergenerational equity considerations in optimal resource harvesting. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24: 119–32. 9. Howarth, R.B. and Norgaard, R. B. 1992. Environmental valuation under sustainable development. American Economic Review 80: 473–7. 10. Broome, J. 2008. The ethics of climate change. Scientific American 298: 97–102. 11. Singer, P. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press. 12. Ramsey, F. 1928. A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal 38: 543–59. 13. Hoel, M., and Sterner, T. 2007. Discounting and relative prices. Climatic Change 84: 265–80. 14. Woodward, R. T., and Bishop, R. C. 1997. How to decide when experts disagree: Uncertainty‐based choice rules in environmental policy. Land Economics 73: 492–507. 15. Weitzman, M. L. 2009. On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Economics and Statistics 91: 1–19. 16. Gerst, M., Howarth, R. B., and Borsuk, M. E. 2010. Accounting for the risk of extreme outcomes in an integrated assessment of climate change. Energy Policy 38: 4540–8. 17. Parfit, D. 1983a. Energy policy and the further future: The identity problem. In D. MacLean and P. G. Brown (eds.), Energy and the Future. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. Pp. 166–179. 18. De‐Shalit, A. 1995. Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations. London: Routledge. 19. Gosseries, A. 2008. On future generations' rights. Journal of Political Philosophy 16: 446–74. 20. Howarth, R. B. 1992. Intergenerational justice and the chain of obligation. Environmental Values 1: 133–40. Howarth, Richard: “Intergenerational Justice”, In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.) (2011): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
EconNordh I William D. Nordhaus The political business cycle 1975 Norgaard I Richard Norgaard John S. Dryzek The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Oxford 2011 |
| Presentism | Parfit | Norgaard I 339 (Def) Presentism/Political philosophy: Presentism is a moral framework that is implicitly adopted by climate economists such as Manne (1995)(1), Nordhaus (1992(2), 2008)(3), and Anthoff et al. (2009b)(4). In this perspective, policy decisions should be based strictly on the preferences of the current generation with no explicit moral standing afforded to members of future generations. The rub is that presentism implies that the Norgaard I 340 weight attached to the welfare of future generations should be based strictly on the degree of altruism that people exhibit through their private decisions (Arrow et al. 1996)(5). Advocates of presentism attach special importance to the market rate of return on capital investment, which they argue reveals people's willingness to give up present economic benefits for the sake of their children and grandchildren (Goulder and Stavins 2002)(6). Pro Presentism/Nordhaus: Nordhaus (1992(7), 2008(3)), for example, has long advocated a presentist approach in which major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions should be deferred into the long‐run future. In Nordhaus's analysis, the future benefits provided by climate stabilization are too small to justify imposing significant short‐run costs given the degree of intergenerational altruism people reveal through their private decisions. VsPresentism: One line of critique argues that the market return on capital investment reveals the preferences that people hold regarding their own present and future well‐being, not the conceptually distinct values they hold regarding the appropriate resolution of intergenerational conflicts (Burton 1993)(8). In the economic models employed by presentists, these two behavioral motives are typically reduced to a single parameter for the sake of tractability and simplicity. VsVs: Authors such as Howarth and Norgaard (1992)(9), however, argue that this modeling approach is theoretically unsound and that fresh insights arise through the use of models that distinguish between personal time preference and intergenerational ethics. VsPresentism: (…) critics also charge that presentism involves the unjust treatment of posterity because it denies the principle that all human beings—including members of future generations—should have full and equal moral standing (Broome 2008)(10). Along these lines, Singer (2002: 26)(11) argues that the moral salience of impacts such as ‘suffering and death, or the extinction of species’ does not diminish with the passage of time. In a similar vein, Ramsey (1928)(12) argues that favoring the interests of present over future generations is ‘a practice which is ethically indefensible and arises merely from the weakness of the imagination.’ PresentismVsVs: Advocates of presentism, however, counter that the strength of intergenerational altruism has been sufficient to ensure that the quality of life has steadily improved in the centuries following the industrial revolution. If one assumes that economic growth will Norgaard I 341 continue for some time into the future, it follows that our descendants in future generations are likely to be substantially more wealthy than we are today. VsPresentism: (…) climatic impacts may be severe enough to threaten the sustainability and productivity of economic activity (Hoel and Sterner 2007)(13). This point of view is supported by the findings of Woodward and Bishop (1997)(14), Weitzman (2009)(15), and Gerst et al. (2010)(16). Pro Presentism/Parfit: More radically, authors such as Parfit (1983a)(17) question the notion that present decision makers have any obligations to future generations aside from ensuring that future persons have lives that are minimally worth living. (…) suppose that wholly different sets of potential persons would live in: (a) a low‐income future characterized by a degraded natural environment; and (b) a high‐income future characterized by a flourishing environment. Parfit's argument is that the individuals living in the degraded state would be thankful for the fact that present decisions fostered the conditions necessary for them to come into being. Steps to stabilize climate would (…) lead to a different world in which they would never be born. VsParfit: “Our obligations to future generations derive from a sense of a community that stretches and extends over generations and into the future…If one accepts the idea of a community in one generation, including the principle that this entails certain obligations to other members, then one should accept the idea of a transgenerational community extending into the future, hence recognizing obligations to future generations.” (De‐Shalit 1995: 14–15)(18). VsParfit/VsPresentism: Alternatively, Gosseries (2008)(19) notes that Parfit's argument abstracts away from a key fact of human demographics: At each point in time, the current generation of adults overlaps with its children and grandchildren whose existence and identities are fully determined. If one accepts the plausible premise that each generation of adults holds binding duties to its flesh‐and‐blood progeny, a ‘chain of obligation’ is then established between present decision makers and the unborn members of more distant generations (Howarth 1992)(20). >Generational Justice, >Climate Change/Utilitarianism. 1. Manne, A. S. 1995. The rate of time preference: Implications for the greenhouse debate. Energy Policy 23: 391–4. 2. Nordhaus, W. D. 1992. An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258: 1315–19. 3. Nordhaus, W. 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighting the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven: Yale University Press. 4. Anthoff, D. Tol, R. S. J. and Yohe, G. W. 2009b. Risk aversion, time preference, and the social cost of carbon. Environmental Research Letters 4: 1–7. 5. Arrow, K. J., Cline, W. R., Mäler, K. G., Munasinghe, R., Squitieri, R., and Stiglitz, J. E. 1996. Intertemporal equity, discounting, and economic efficiency. In J. P. Bruce, H. Lee, and E. F. Haites (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6. Goulder, L. H., and Stavins, R. N. 2002. An eye on the future. Nature 419: 673–4. 7. Nordhaus, W. D. 1992. An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258: 1315–19. 8. Burton, P. S. 1993. Intertemporal preferences and intergenerational equity considerations in optimal resource harvesting. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24: 119–32. 9. Howarth, R.B. and Norgaard, R. B. 1992. Environmental valuation under sustainable development. American Economic Review 80: 473–7. 10. Broome, J. 2008. The ethics of climate change. Scientific American 298: 97–102. 11. Singer, P. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press. 12. Ramsey, F. 1928. A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal 38: 543–59. 13. Hoel, M., and Sterner, T. 2007. Discounting and relative prices. Climatic Change 84: 265–80. 14. Woodward, R. T., and Bishop, R. C. 1997. How to decide when experts disagree: Uncertainty‐based choice rules in environmental policy. Land Economics 73: 492–507. 15. Weitzman, M. L. 2009. On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Economics and Statistics 91: 1–19. 16. Gerst, M., Howarth, R. B., and Borsuk, M. E. 2010. Accounting for the risk of extreme outcomes in an integrated assessment of climate change. Energy Policy 38: 4540–8. 17. Parfit, D. 1983a. Energy policy and the further future: The identity problem. In D. MacLean and P. G. Brown (eds.), Energy and the Future. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. Pp. 166–179. 18. De‐Shalit, A. 1995. Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations. London: Routledge. 19. Gosseries, A. 2008. On future generations' rights. Journal of Political Philosophy 16: 446–74. 20. Howarth, R. B. 1992. Intergenerational justice and the chain of obligation. Environmental Values 1: 133–40. Howarth, Richard: “Intergenerational Justice”, In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.) (2011): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
Parf I D. Parfit Reasons and Persons Oxford 1986 Parf II Derekt Parfit On what matters Oxford 2011 Norgaard I Richard Norgaard John S. Dryzek The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Oxford 2011 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presentism | Lewis Vs Presentism | Schwarz I 19 Past/Future/LewisVsPresentism: it is common sense that the last moon landing was in 1972 and that certain species are long extinct. Presentism: but also refers to common sense and claims that these things are no longer real. To be past means to no longer exist. There will also be future species only when they are there. There is only what exists now (give/exist/"there is"). LewisVsPresentism: "there is": Lewis does not claim that "dinosaurs exist now". But they do exist (although not today). They only exist in the past. But the presentist also accepts this. Then what is the point of contention? Schwarz I 20 Solution: has to do with the area of quantification. Quantification/Area/Schwarz: unlimited quantifiers are rare and are part of metaphysics. Example "there is no God" refers to the whole universe. Example: "There is no beer": refers to the refrigerator. Existence/Lewis/Schwarz: so there are different "ways of existence". Numbers exist in a different way than tables. Existence/Presentism: his statements about what exists are absolutely unlimited. Four-dimensionalism/Existence: statements about what exist ignore from his point of view past and future. When we say that there are no dinosaurs ((s) then we (wrongly) extend the present into the past.) Schwarz: through the present tense we indicate that we are not talking about absolutely everything, but only about the present. Quantification/Schwarz: can also be neutral in the present. But it doesn't depend on grammar. Schwarz I 21 Solution: make true: what makes the sentences true, e.g. that Socrates drank the cup of hemlock? Four-dimensionalism truthmakers: the events in the past part of reality. Presentism: does not believe in past parts of reality. But then the truthmaker must be a characteristic of the present! VsPresentism: Problem: the present is logically not dependent on the past. It is possible that the world was only created five minutes ago. Reality/Presentism: (some representatives) one does not grasp reality by just determining what things are present. That Socrates existed is not true because there are certain things now, but because they existed then. Statements about what has existed and will exist express basic facts that cannot be reduced to statements about what is. Then the sentence operators "it was a case that," and "it will be the case" are primitive and unanalytic. (Prior, 1969(1)). Properties/LewisVsPrior/LewisVsPresentism: Vs these primitive operators: All truths must be based on what kind of things with what qualities there are. The two operators above would not be sufficient. Example "Socrates is still admired today" ((s) This does not distinguish the present from the past as desired here. Example "There were several English kings named Charles": Problem: there was no time when there were several. Then, among other things, plural past quantifiers must also be accepted. Four dimensionalism/Lewis: Solution: Temporal operators simply move the range of quantifieres. Example "...1642" is like "...in Australia". Then: with "there were several English kings named Charles" we quantify about a larger part of the past, perhaps about all past things together. Presentism: (some representatives) try to acquire it without sharing the metaphysics: Reference to "Socrates" or "1642" is then somehow abstract and of a completely different kind than that to concrete things (Bigelow 1996). Perhaps past times are linguistic fictions, sentences and their inhabitants contained in them (descriptions). Then, for example, "cup of hemlock" would not require that there is someone of flesh and blood who does anything. (!) It is enough if a fiction tells about it ((s) >Fiction/Field). Schwarz I 22 Other solution/presentism: such sentences about past things as set-theoretical constructions of present things: the Socrates of the year 399 is then a set of now existing qualities, among them also the characteristic to drink the hemlock cup. VsPresentism: not all things that ever existed can be described in our language or constructed from current events. Besides, there are many fictions that have nothing to do with them. What distinguishes the "real" from the "false"? Four dimensionalism: "Surrogate V" ("Replacement V"): interprets other times and their inhabitants as metaphysically fundamental entities. Example "Socrates" refers to an irreducible entity ("being") that is somehow linked to the qualities we assume from Socrates. (LewisVs) Problem: the link must not be that the entity has these properties! Because that would be the true four dimensionalism. LewisVs "ersatz world": no theory of substitute Socrats can be developed where these are really "abstract". PresentismVsFour-dimensionalism: sweeps essential aspects of reality under the carpet: what will become of the flow of time, the change of things and the peculiarity of the present? The four-dimensional block universe never changes. His time dimension "does not flow". E.g. then I can't be happy that the visit to the dentist is over, because it is still just as real. Four-dimensionalismVsPresentism: e.g. visit to the dentist: I am glad that it is no longer there, not that it has been erased from reality. Just as I'm glad the attack didn't happen here, but elsewhere. 1. Arthur N. Prior [1969]: Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| |||