Essay 2 — Dire Consequences and the Call of Duty in the Ecological Cataclysm
Reading Focus
As you read part 2, "Some Ethical Ideas," of Blackburn's Very Short Introduction, focus on the distinction he makes between deontological duty ethics versus consequentialist ethics — and think about how these ideas relate to the arguments put forward by Hallam in Common Sense; and McBay, Keith and Jensen in Deep Green Resistance.
Main Question
As we face the political and ecological cataclysm, can our ethics be informed by both consequentialist and deontological principles, or must we favor one approach over the other?
Prompt
Consider the cataclysmic ecological consequences that are likely to arise if there is little or no coordinated response to the climate crisis on the part of global political elites. It is likely that young people today will experience something like the "no resistance" or the "limited resistance" scenarios described by McBay, Keith and Jensen — or something like what Hallam describes in his Advice to Young People as They Face Annihilation. And we should take into account that — although they try downplay the issue in their typical conservative fashion — the Economist's report See What Three Degrees of Global Warming Looks Like substantiates the fears of Hallam; and McBay, Keith and Jensen. We should also take in account that the global power elites have known about the political and ecological emergency for over thirty years, and have in fact done little over those decades (see Peter Sinclair, James Hansen's 1988 Testimony after 30 Years. How Did He Do?; Ray Anderson discussing "Civilization, Ecological Services, and 'Intergenerational Tyranny;'" Greta Thunberg, "You Are Stealing Our Future" and "COP26 Is a Failure;" and Tan and Wu, "Glasgow Pact Slammed for Betraying the Global Poor Who Suffer Most from the Climate Emergency"). The ecological crisis is in great measure a political crisis. Noam Chomsky shows this in his 2020 STAR Conference Remarks. He also shows how the threat of nuclear annihilation combines with the other two. Our youngest generation of people is facing consequences that are far too dire, and far too likely.
When thinking about the ecological emergency, it is difficult to avoid a profound concern for consequences. But Hallam; and McBay, Keith and Jensen also emphasize duty. As Blackburn explains in part 2 of his Very Short Introduction, philosophers often think of consequentialist ethics and deontological duty ethics as being at odds with one another. When Hallam; and McBay, Keith and Jensen appeal to both consequences and duty, are they confused — or do the two types of appeal logically fit together within their arguments? The crisis certainly involves cataclysmic consequences — but is there a call of duty that urges us to act, consequences be damned?
Both Hallam on the one hand, and McBay, Keith and Jensen on the other are calling for an overthrow of the global political order. There are likely rather negative consequences to both approaches. How do those consequences compare with the consequences of inaction? And most importantly, how does a sense of duty enter into the rational consideration of options? Does a sense of duty rule out certain forms of action — for example, the destruction of property, or assassination of politicians? Do the circumstances of extreme consequences alter the rules conduct demanded by duty? Can consequentialists ethics and deontological ethics work hand-in-hand, or must we favor one approach over the other?