Climate Change and Individual Moral Obligation. Kant’s Categorical Imperative As a Basis

Exposé Écrit pour un Séminaire / Cours , 2020 , 15 Pages , Note: 2,0

Philosophie - Pratique (Ethique, Esthétique, Culture, Nature, Droit, ...)

This paper discusses whether respectively how it is possible to ethically justify an individual moral obligation to act against climate change on the basis of Kant's categorical imperative.

Actions against climate change might include using public transport instead of cars, avoiding travelling by aircraft, protesting for climate justice, supporting environmental organizations, boycotting oil companies, stopping wasteful consumption, refusing having a baby, using sustainable energy forms instead of fossil fuels, passing stricter laws or investing in the development of alternative energy forms.

Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)

• 1. INTRODUCTION.
• 2. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE..
• 2.1 CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES VS. HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES.
• 2.2 MAXIMS VS. UNIVERSAL LAWS.........
• 2.3 THE \"MAXIM TEST\"\li>
  • 2.3.1 STRICT DUTIES...
  • 2.3.2 LESS STRICT DUTIES
  • 2.3.3 CONCLUSION
• 3. \"MAXIM-TEST” OF DRIVING A GAS GUZZLER
• 3.1 POSSIBLE UNDERLYING MAXIMS OF \"DRIVING A GAS GUZZLER\"\
• 3.2 CONCLUSION
• 4. APPLICATION OF THE MAXIM TEST.
• 4.1 VIRTUE OF PRUDENCE
• 4.2 CONCLUSION

Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)

This paper delves into the ethical justification of an individual moral obligation to combat climate change, drawing upon Kant's categorical imperative. The paper analyzes actions against climate change such as using public transportation, protesting for climate justice, and adopting sustainable energy forms. Through the example of driving a gas guzzler for pleasure, the paper explores whether Kant's framework can establish a moral obligation to refrain from such activities.

• The nature and application of Kant's categorical imperative in contemporary ethical dilemmas.
• The distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives in ethical decision-making.
• The role of maxims and universal laws in determining moral obligations.
• The implications of Kant's framework for individual responsibility towards climate change.
• The potential ethical justifications for refraining from activities that contribute to climate change.

Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)

• Chapter 1: Introduction: This chapter introduces the research question of whether an individual moral obligation to act against climate change can be ethically justified based on Kant's categorical imperative. It uses the example of driving a gas guzzler for pleasure to illustrate the ethical dilemma.
• Chapter 2: The Categorical Imperative: This chapter provides a detailed explanation of Kant's categorical imperative, distinguishing it from hypothetical imperatives. It outlines the concept of maxims and universal laws, crucial to the application of the categorical imperative.
• Chapter 3: "Maxim-Test" of Driving a Gas Guzzler: This chapter explores possible underlying maxims associated with the action of driving a gas guzzler for pleasure. It examines these maxims through the lens of Kant's maxim-test.
• Chapter 4: Application of the Maxim Test: This chapter demonstrates how the results of the maxim test can be applied to specific situations, such as driving a gas guzzler for fun.

Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)

The key terms and concepts explored in this paper include climate ethics, Kant's categorical imperative, hypothetical imperatives, maxims, universal laws, moral obligation, individual responsibility, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, driving a gas guzzler, and the maxim test.

• Université: University of Vienna
• Note: 2,0
• Auteur: Alexander Hölzl (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2020
• Pages: 15
• N° de catalogue: V942733
• ISBN (ebook): 9783346285065
• ISBN (Livre): 9783346285072
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: moral obligation, climate change, kant, categorical imperative, individual moral obligation, climate ethics, ethics, applied ethics