Transcript A Perfect Moral Storm

PHILOSOPHY 102 (STOLZE)
Notes on Stephen Gardiner,
“A Perfect Moral Storm”
Gardiner’s Thesis
“The peculiar features of the climate change problem pose
substantial obstacles to our ability to make the hard choices
necessary to address it. Climate change is a perfect moral
storm. One consequence of this is that, even if the difficult
ethical questions could be answered, we might still find it
difficult to act. For the storm makes us extremely vulnerable
to moral corruption” (p. 398).
What is a Perfect Storm?
A perfect storm = “an event constituted by an unusual
convergence of independently harmful factors where this
convergence is likely to result in substantial, and possibly
catastrophic, negative outcomes” (p. 398).
Why does Climate Change give rise to a Perfect
Moral Storm?
Gardiner argues that “climate change appears to be a
perfect moral storm because it involves the convergence of
a number of factors that threaten our ability to behave
ethically” (p. 398).
The Three Climate Storms
•
•
•
Global
Intergenerational
Theoretical
The Global Storm
•
•
•
Dispersion of Causes and Effects
Fragmentation of Agency
Institutional Inadequacy
The Intergenerational Storm
•
•
•
Dispersion of Causes and Effects
Fragmentation of Agency
Institutional Inadequacy
The Theoretical Storm
The problem of moral corruption, associated with the
following vices:
 Distraction







Complacency
Unreasonable Doubt
Selective Attention (Gardiner focuses on this factor)
Delusion
Pandering
False Witness
Hypocrisy
George Monbiot on Climate Change Denial
“A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes
that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult for people to repress thoughts of
death, and that they might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen
their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. There is already experimental evidence
suggesting that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson
proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism
towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central
immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of
entitlement and exceptionalism.
If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might
react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven’t been able to find any experiments testing this
proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change
denial over the past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the
hell do we confront it?”
(Excerpted from George Monbiot, “Death Denial” [http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial].)