Climatic Change 130 (3):335–345 (2015)

Authors
David R. Morrow
American University
Abstract
Disagreements about morally appropriate mitigation policies arise in part from implicit disagreements about the nature and moral significance of needs. One key question is what, if anything, distinguishes “needs” from “mere wants.” One approach, prominent in economics and implemented in existing integrated assessment models of climate change, rejects a hard distinction between needs and wants. An alternative approach, prominent in the philosophical literature on needs, identifies needs with the requirements for autonomous agency, which is the capacity to set and pursue one’s own goals. A second key question is in what sense, if any, the satisfaction of needs should take precedence over the satisfaction of wants. Those who reject the distinction between wants and needs can say only that some desires should be weighted more heavily than others. Those who endorse the distinction can say that, given certain ethical assumptions, it is wrong to frustrate one person’s needs in order to satisfy others’ mere wants. Thus, rejecting the distinction between wants and needs tends to justify less aggressive mitigation policies, in which satisfying the so-called “wants” of present generations compensates for frustrating the so-called “needs” of future generations. Endorsing the distinction between wants and needs, along with certain ethical assumptions, tends to justify more aggressive mitigation policies. Both positions are intellectually defensible; understanding them helps illuminate disagreements over mitigation policy.
Keywords climate change  climate justice  mitigation
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,163
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethical Aspects of the Mitigation Obstruction Argument Against Climate Engineering Research.David R. Morrow - 2014 - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 372:20140062.
Climate Change, Intergenerational Equity and the Social Discount Rate.Simon Caney - 2014 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 13 (4):320-342.
Climate Change Justice.Darrel Moellendorf - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (3):173-186.
Globalizing Responsibility for Climate Change.Steve Vanderheiden - 2011 - Ethics and International Affairs 25 (1):65-84.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-06-18

Total views
17 ( #636,073 of 2,506,517 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,791 of 2,506,517 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes