WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: future-generations-on-a-par, "If the ethical judgement is that future generations count very little regardless of their consumption level then investments with mainly long-run pay-offs would not be favoured. In other words, if you care little about future generations you will care little about climate change. As we have argued that is not a position which has much foundation in ethics and which many would find unacceptable." (48) supports (Stern 2006b) "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), click on the small, bent arrow at the bottom right of this text box to get back to the Stern Review's main argumentation start here "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) supports it has not been shown that this ethical principle is better than alternative ethical principles, even though the last is possible, it is hard to imagine that any society at our time or in the future could accept the destruction of basic environmental living conditions challenges (M.H.) it is possible that in the future "large parts of the population lose interest in economic goods and turn to ascetic pursuits, or where rich nations use higher productivity to develop fiendish new weapons, or where people come to love the altered landscape of the warmer world" (693), "The logic behind the Review’s social welfare function is not as universal as it would have us believe. It stems from the British utilitarian tradition with all the controversies and baggage that accompany that philosophical stance." (692) supports "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes "The morals of major religions—present and future—might clash with the utilitarian calculus of Ramsey growth theories." (693), whatever those differences may be, it should be absolutely clear that no society at our time or in the future could accept the destruction of basic environmental living conditions defeats (M.H.) in a pluralist and multicultural world there are "differing norms over space and time" (693), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes in a pluralist and multicultural world there are "differing norms over space and time" (693), Rawls's principle refers to the "worst-off" within a given society; neither does it refer to injustice among different societies, nor to intergenerational justice defeats (M.H.) Another "alternative would be a Rawlsian perspective that societies should maximize the economic well-being of the poorest generation. The ethical implication of this policy would be that current consumption should increase sharply to reflect the projected future improvements in productivity." (692), how to protect millions against sea-level rise and extreme weather events? defeats (M.H.) "Yet another approach would be a precautionary (minimax) principle in which societies maximize the minimum consumption along the riskiest path; this might involve stockpiling vaccines, grain, oil, and water in contemplation of possible plagues and famines." (692), the principle in the first sentence is identical with Stern's principle. The second sentence is not justified defeats (M.H.) "Quite another ethical stance would be to hold that each generation should leave at least as much total societal capital (tangible, natural, human, and techno- logical) as it inherited. This would admit a wide array of time discount rates., this ethical principle is justified only if it has been shown that it is better than alternative ethical principles therefore (ArgScheme: modus tollens AU=Nordhaus interpreted) this ethical principle is not justified (693), The Debate about the Stern-Review and the Economics of Climate Change visualized according to the rules and conventions of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes "this generation cannot decide for or tie the hands of future generations. Instead, each generation is in the position of one member of a relay team, handing off the baton of capital to the next generation, and hoping that future generations behave sensibly and avoid catastrophic choices by dropping or destroying the baton." (693), it has not been shown that this ethical principle is better than alternative ethical principles therefore (ArgScheme: modus tollens AU=Nordhaus interpreted) this ethical principle is not justified (693), this ethical principle is justified only if we know the preferences of future generations therefore (ArgScheme: modus tollens AU=Nordhaus) this ethical principle is not justified (693), the second sentence is definitively wrong. The ethical principle of the Stern review is a deontological principle in the Kantian tradition, not a utilitarian principle defeats (M.H.) "The logic behind the Review’s social welfare function is not as universal as it would have us believe. It stems from the British utilitarian tradition with all the controversies and baggage that accompany that philosophical stance." (692), it is possible that in the future "large parts of the population lose interest in economic goods and turn to ascetic pursuits, or where rich nations use higher productivity to develop fiendish new weapons, or where people come to love the altered landscape of the warmer world" (693) supports we do not know the preferences of future generations (693), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes "Yet another approach would be a precautionary (minimax) principle in which societies maximize the minimum consumption along the riskiest path; this might involve stockpiling vaccines, grain, oil, and water in contemplation of possible plagues and famines." (692), Even if we accept the first sentence, the second one is wrong because it takes only monetary and technological capital into account, but not natural or environmental capital. If this were included, the "Rawlsean" principle would lead to exactly the same result as Stern's defeats (M.H.) Another "alternative would be a Rawlsian perspective that societies should maximize the economic well-being of the poorest generation. The ethical implication of this policy would be that current consumption should increase sharply to reflect the projected future improvements in productivity." (692)