In this essay, a price increase for diesel fuel by 5€ per litre is discussed from an ethical point of view, linking it to sustainability considerations and investigating the case with references to different philosophical approaches, such as Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, the utilitarianism founded by Jeremy Bentham, or John Rawls’ concept of justice. The aim of this investigation is to find out whether the diesel tax represents a legitimate measure for the reduction of climate-damaging emissions or not. For this purpose, arguments both from a deontological as well as from a teleological perspective are introduced and weighed against each other. In the end, the essay arrives at the conclusion that while constituting indeed a meaningful action against climate change and for the improvement of air quality, the diesel tax nonetheless cannot be described as a just procedure according to the two principles of justice after Rawls and with reference to his concept of the veil of ignorance. In other words, the proposed measure is interpreted as an effective tool for sustainability purposes, but still not ethically justifiable due to the disproportionate discrimination in financial regards against the persons relying on the diesel technology. Therefore, other ways are suggested in order to reduce greenhouse gases and particulate matter emissions, resulting in less drastic consequences for particular actor groups and demanding fewer individual costs, but focusing more on a fundamental political transition process.
Table of Contents
1. Depiction of the case and definition of the ethical dilemma
2. Presentation of the actors
3. Line of arguments
3.1. Is the diesel tax and hence the unequal treatment of car owners, legitimate and practical from an ethical perspective?
3.2. Is the diesel tax a meaningful measure from a sustainability perspective?
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
This essay evaluates the ethical and sustainability-related implications of a proposed 5 € per litre tax on diesel fuel in Germany, aiming to determine whether such a measure is both ethically justified and an effective tool for climate protection.
- Ethical dilemma of the diesel tax regarding fairness and discrimination.
- Deontological vs. Teleological philosophical perspectives on the issue.
- Application of John Rawls’ concept of justice as fairness.
- Sustainability impacts of the proposed diesel tax on German mobility.
- Evaluation of political alternatives to address climate change without disproportionate social costs.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Depiction of the case and definition of the ethical dilemma
The investigated ethical case goes as follows:
The here given decision of the German government to raise the diesel tax, alludes to the current societal discussion about the “diesel emissions scandal” which manifested itself in drastically higher levels of pollutant emissions than officially indicated, first and foremost of cars driven by a diesel engine. To emphasize the extent of impacts originating from road traffic on climate change, some data shall be given first: In 2010, 14% of the global greenhouse gas emissions were released by the transport sector. More specifically, more than a fifth of the total CO2 emissions stemming from fuel combustion, can be traced to road traffic, referring to Germany. Such numbers and shares show the importance of the traffic sector with regard to the main causes for climate change and thus reveal huge emission saving potentials. In this context, the manipulation of emissions by diesel cars originating from the respective car manufacturers, raises the questions how to deal with the unexpectedly higher emissions and which concrete measurements should be taken in order to reduce them.
Summary of Chapters
1. Depiction of the case and definition of the ethical dilemma: This chapter introduces the societal context of the diesel emissions scandal and defines the central ethical conflict between individual interests and the collective need for climate protection.
2. Presentation of the actors: This section categorizes the various groups directly and indirectly affected by the proposed diesel tax, identifying diesel car owners as the most vulnerable group.
3. Line of arguments: This core chapter evaluates the ethical legitimacy and sustainability effectiveness of the tax using deontological, teleological, and fairness-based philosophical frameworks.
4. Conclusion: The final section synthesizes the arguments, concluding that while the tax is sustainability-effective, it fails the test of ethical fairness under Rawlsian principles.
Key Words
Diesel tax, Sustainability, Ethics, Deontological ethics, Teleological ethics, John Rawls, Justice as Fairness, Climate Change, Emission reduction, Discrimination, German Government, Mobility infrastructure, Political transition, Fairness, Utilitarianism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this essay?
The essay examines the ethical implications and the potential sustainability effectiveness of a proposed 5 € per litre tax on diesel fuel in Germany.
What are the primary themes addressed?
The work addresses the conflict between climate protection measures and social justice, specifically regarding the financial burden placed on diesel car owners.
What is the central research question?
The study asks whether a drastic diesel tax is a legitimate and practical measure from an ethical perspective, and whether it serves as a meaningful tool for sustainability.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a normative-analytical method, applying established philosophical theories like Kant’s categorical imperative, utilitarianism, and Rawls’ concept of justice as fairness to evaluate the dilemma.
What does the main body explore?
It first identifies all affected actors, then proceeds to analyze the arguments for and against the tax through the lenses of deontological duty and teleological consequences.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Diesel tax, Ethics, Rawls’ theory of justice, Sustainability, and Climate policy.
Why are diesel drivers considered the "losers" in this scenario?
They are described as the least privileged group because many are financially dependent on their vehicles for commuting and lack the funds to switch to alternative engine types on short notice.
Does the author consider the tax a successful environmental measure?
Yes, from a purely teleological or sustainability perspective, the author acknowledges that such a tax could be an effective, albeit radical, instrument to reduce emissions.
Why does the essay conclude that the tax is not ethically justifiable?
Applying Rawls' "veil of ignorance," the author argues that the measure is not a just procedure because it disproportionately penalizes a specific group rather than providing fair outcomes for all.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anonym (Autor:in), 2020, The German Government raises the Diesel Tax. An Ethical Discussion, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1388996
