Högre seminariet i filosofi bjuder in till filosofi bjuder in till seminarium med Karsten Klint Jensen, Institutet för framtidsstudier. Seminariet ges på engelska och har den engelska titenl "Is Climate Change a Collective Harm Case? A Critical Review of Julia Nefsky’s Arguments".
Abstract (på engelska):
This talk asks for the justification of Julia Nefsky’s claim that climate change is a collective harm case. The general definition of a collective harm case is ‘there is some sort of choice that is such that if enough people make that choice, serious harm could be avoided or reduced, and yet it does not seem that one’s doing so, on any given occasion, will itself make a difference.’ This raises a challenge because people may draw the counterintuitive conclusion that they have no reason to make the choice.
Nefsky seems to suggest that, in analogy to an imagined case like Parfit’s Drops of Water, the relevant appearance is actually directly observed in the case of climate change, but the evidence she quotes is utterly inadequate in several aspects. But even if the appearance could be observed, it is unclear whether this would allow people to draw the alleged counterintuitive conclusion.
Hence, a better way to define a collective harm case is by ‘one’s doing so, on any given occasion, will itself not make a difference’, and make the claim that climate change is a case in question a hypothesis, which is justified to the extent that counterexamples can be refuted.
However, when stating a revised version of the definition, it is necessary to clarify exactly which sense of ‘not making a difference’ actually has a counterintuitive implication. Also, it needs to be spelled out how ‘not making a difference’ can be applied to individual lifestyle choices regarding climate change, where the outcome materialize over time and is uncertain at the time of action.
Nefsky actually attempts what can be understood as two refutations of what to be seems counterexamples to the hypothesis that climate change is a collective harm case according to the revised definition. However, both attempts seem to fail. Thus, to the extent the counterexamples survive, the hypothesis is falsified. But what exactly our duties as individuals then are regarding climate change is not answered with this.
Alla intresserade är välkomna till detta seminarium.
