Moral theories serve the purpose to tell individuals what they should do and so, deontology is a theory to tell individuals what they should do and how to act. (for a recap of deontology, refer to the last post).
Climate change is “the emission of greenhouse gases resulting in increased temperatures, rising sea-levels, and severe weather events" (Caney, 2020). Deontology applies duties in order to solve climate change such as: to respect the rights of people, including future generations, who can potentially be harmed as a result of climate change due to the formula of Humanity and to respect and care for the environment.
Costello argues that “the inequity of climate change – with the rich causing most of the problem and the poor initially suffering most of the consequences – will prove to be a source of historical shame to our generation if nothing is done to address to it” (Costello et al, 2009, p. 1694). Moreover, since climate change means that the Earth will warm up more and more over time and thus, the consequences will get worse and worse, it is the future generation that will suffer the most. There are two issues that have been highlighted. The first of which is that it is the rich causing most the damage, and the poor find themselves on the receiving end of it. Deontology would be able to react to this issue due to the formula of humanity. The poor are used as a means for the rich, who are responsible for more of the emissions of greenhouse gases, so that they are able to enjoy whatever is providing these emissions. The poor are a means since the expense of the activities of the rich is at the expense of the poor. The second issue is: is it fair for future generations? It can be argued that the future generations are not born yet, so they do not have any rights. If they are afforded rights, there is difficulty in ascertaining how much rights, and to how much of the future generations? It would be difficult for deontology to account for this issue. The reason is that a maxim of ‘protect the future generations’ may not be universalizable. And to what extent do I protect them. Some individuals believe in living in the present, since the future is not promised and so, making sacrifices in the present for an unpromised future seems absurd. Moreover, some individuals may decide not to have any offspring and so there is no direct interaction between these individuals and the future generations. Why should these individuals care for the future generations? Especially since, in the majority of cases, when individuals think about future generations, they generally mean their offspring, relatives or people from a similar background to them. They refer to a specific future generation that is connected to them, as opposed to the future generations in general. However, the formula of humanity could possibly be applied to the issue of future generations. The future generations can be included in the definition of humanity. This can be opposed by arguing that the future generation do not exist so to afford them rights and treat them like humanity seems illogical. This is true, but deontology can counter this by arguing the existence of future generations is probable. The proof for this is history, the future became the past. Thus, it is assumed that the future generation will exist, unless due to an effect. The conception of a future generation is possible, but yet to be actualised – brought into existence. It is implausible to know the future generations, but to presume there will be a future generation is plausible. Currently, our treatment of the world and climate change will leave an effect to the future. The effects of our actions will leave the conception of a future generation impossible. Since scientific and technological advancements make it easier to predict our impact on future generations, this could easily be accounted for. However, it does still remain a mystery as to how much rights can we give to a conception of the future generations, and deontology does not answer this.
Sinnott-Armstrong illustrates the issue of wasteful driving for fun as a problem for deontology. He argues that “my individual act is neither necessary nor sufficient for global warming… global warming and climate change occur on such a scale that my individual driving makes no difference to the welfare of anyone” (Sinnott-Armstong, 2005, pp. 289 – 293). This means that wasteful driving for pleasure is not morally wrong because an individual’s act of wasteful driving does not harm anyone, nor does abstaining from wasteful driving for fun make a difference. With regards to deontology, wasteful driving for fun is universalizable and does not regard others as means. This also raises a further point on the issue of protecting the future generations. Driving is harmful regardless but when is it ascertained that it is this drive that is harming the future generations? This links to a further issue with climate change is the difficulty in identifying the cause and solution to the problem. The ‘individual cause inefficacy’ is that no individual, or organisation, or nation can cause or solve the problem. If University of Birmingham was able to reduce its greenhouse gases emissions by 100%, the global climate change crisis would not be solved. It is the collective that cause the issue, and the collective that can solve the problem. A potential response to this can be that to not drive beyond necessity. Not driving beyond necessity is universalizable and has a valid motive of duty – to protect future generations – and fulfils the formula of humanity.
In summary, deontology has the potential to account for climate change. The main issues were the issue of wasteful driving, the rich causing most the problems for the poor, and taking into account future generations. The issue of the rich causing most the problems and the poor receiving the consequences can be tackled by the formula of humanity and motive of duty. Future generations can also be accounted for in the formula of humanity. This is due to the concept of the future generations being possible but yet to be actualised. So, we should act as if it was to be actualised and presume so and have good reason to presume so. With regards to the issue of wasteful driving, not driving beyond necessity is universalizable, and would limit the harm done to the environment. However, there are a few issues that deontology does not cover. Mainly, the issue with practicality. Humans will continuously be harming the universe regardless of any restrictions. For example, albeit driving less, driving still contributes to the issue. So, deontology does not account for practical life. How much driving should we do? It seems trivial to stop at 10 miles instead of 11 miles, as if that extra mile will raise the temperature of the world. Likewise, humans will be affecting the future generations regardless, but deontology is unable to provide a limit to how much it should be done.