|
Anthropogenic Climate Change: Scientific Uncertainties and Moral Dilemmas| old_uid | 4133 |
|---|
| title | Anthropogenic Climate Change: Scientific Uncertainties and Moral Dilemmas |
|---|
| start_date | 2008/02/19 |
|---|
| schedule | 16h30-18h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| summary | Many politicians as well as press and media presuppose a clear moral obligation to mitigate climate change; the moral obligation to mitigate is rarely discussed. At first glance, the sole questions which remain open as regards climate change seem to be of a political or scientific nature. In contrast, we argue that there are as yet unresolved ethical questions regarding our obligation to mitigate climate change or its socioeconomic consequences, questions that actually precede the practical ones currently discussed in the scientific or philosophical literature and the media. If there is a moral obligation to ‘preserve’ the climate in its present state, where does it stem from? Addressing this question is inevitable in determining what our moral duties as regards climate may reasonably be. Moreover, formulating explicitly the reasons behind what is perceived by many, but not all, as a moral obligation should help in convincing the sceptics. This paper considers in particular the role of scientific expertise and moral reasoning in the decision making process involved in climate- change issues. It points to an unresolved moral dilemma that lies at the heart of this decision making, namely how to balance duties towards future generations against duties towards our contemporaries. At present, the prevailing moral and political discourses shy away from addressing this dilemma and evade responsibility by falsely drawing normative conclusions from the predictions of climate models alone. A crucial issue is to adequately incorporate the uncertainties associated with the predicted consequences of climate change on the well-being of future generations. The uncertainties that need to be considered include those usually associated with climate modeling and prediction, but, more importantly, also moral and general epistemic ones. Accounting for epistemic uncertainties on the one hand grants special responsibility to the scientists involved in the forecasting, i.e. climatologists as well as economists. On the other hand it implies not to misuse scientific prognoses as fig leaves covering difficult political or moral decisions. |
|---|
| responsibles | Darrault-Harris, Petitot, Costantini |
|---|
| |
|