The Ethics of Sustainability Jean Kazez Philosophy Department SMU.
Diterbitkan olehGiffari AlifTelah diubah sekitar setahun yang lalu
Presentasi berjudul: "The Ethics of Sustainability Jean Kazez Philosophy Department SMU."— Transcript presentasi:
The Ethics of Sustainability Jean Kazez Philosophy Department SMU
1.Sustainable development 2.Sustainable fishing 3.Sustainable agriculture 4.Sustainable consumption 5.Sustainable mining 6.Sustainable drilling 7.Sustainable forestry PEMBANGUNAN PERKELANJUTAN
What does it mean? Sustainable X-ing = Doing X in such a way that future people will have “enough and as good”* * Phrase from John Locke, 1690
Jika berkelanjutan maka tidak bersalah? 1.Sustainable graffiti 2.Sustainable tiger hunting 3.Sustainable whaling 4.Sustainable cannibalism
Jika itu diperbolehkan untuk melakukan X, maka kita berkewajiban untuk melakukan X secara berkelanjutan But why are we obligated? Are we really?
2012 2025 2050 2075 2100 X X = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc. 1.Mengapa kita harus meninggalkan X sebanyak dan sebaik sekarang ini, untuk generasi masa depan? Bagaimana jika hal itu mengharuskan kita untuk mengorbankan uang, pekerjaan, waktu, kepuasan, dll.?
2012 2025 2050 2075 2100 X X = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc. 2. Haruskah kita berkorban untuk orang-orang di masa depan sama dengan untuk orang- orang di masa sekarang?
Debat tentang Tugas untuk Generasi Masa Depan ….. we must give the same consideration to future people as to people living right now. ….there are good reasons to sacrifice less for future people than for people living right now. The further in the future, the less we should sacrifice.
Pembela orang masa depan Students prejudiced. Prejudice against future people is like prejudice against other disadvantaged groups. We are all susceptible to this prejudice. We even feel it toward our own future selves.
We are like people at a party saying “first come first served!” Earth’s resources belong to all, no matter when they “arrive”. Locke (1690): “the earth and all inferior creatures” are “common to all men” Locke: we can appropriate resources by “mixing our labor” with them, but only if we leave “enough and as good” for others (present and future). Pembela orang masa depan
Guardians of the Future: – Future people are entitled to political representation Pembela orang masa depan
Penekan Orang Masa Depan 1.Discount means “should sacrifice less for them” – not “should totally dismiss.” 2.The further in the future, the more we should discount; 2025 vs. 2100. 3.Economics: social discount rate.
Social Discount Rate (1.4% vs. 6%) John Broome, “The Ethics of Climate Change,” Scientific American, 2008
Mengapa men-diskon orang masa depan? Beberapa alasan yang “menyeramkan” Most future people are non-existent. Why should we make sacrifices for non-existent people? Our policies, however reckless, will alter who exists in the future. Whoever exists will most likely be glad they exist, so they won’t have any complaint about our policies.
God will provide … maybe even a second planet! The end is nigh – eat drink and be merry! Mengapa men-diskon orang masa depan? Beberapa alasan yang “lainnya”
1.Nearer future people are closer relatives of ours, so we have stronger obligations to them. 2.Future people will be richer than us; poor don’t have to help rich. Mengapa men-diskon orang masa depan? Beberapa alasan yang “lebih baik”
3.We should save for future people not spend for them (they’ll be better off) 4.There are a zillion future people – we can’t have duties to them all. Mengapa men-diskon orang masa depan? Beberapa alasan yang “lebih baik”
5.They will have we can’t anticipate. Mengapa men-diskon orang masa depan? Beberapa alasan yang “lebih baik”
Defenders vs. Discounters Which side is right? Pembela vs. Penekan Sisi mana yang benar?
Manakah alasan-alasan yang baik untuk diskon masalah orang di masa depan? 1.Nearer future people are relatives of ours. 2.Future people will be richer than us; why should poor give to rich? 3.We should save for them, not spend on them now. 4.There are a zillion future people – we can’t have duties to them all. 5.They will have knowledge and technology we can’t predict.
The Mixed Truth 1.Should overcome bias. 2.No fixed rate of discount. 3.Should not assume future people will be rich; we may make them poor! 4.However, we should try to avoid wasting money and effort on NAGs.
Definite NAG Don’t bother Sustainable song-writing (save some melodies for future generations). Sustainable mountain-climbing (save some first ascents for future generations). Can you think of a non-silly example of a definite NAG? Definite NAG Might be NAG Might be NAG Definitely not NAG Don’t bother Not worth it Should do anyway Must do
Definitely not NAG Must do 1.Sustainable land use – future people will not be able to “invent” new land (e.g. city living, building “up”) 2.Conservation – future people will not be able to recreate wilderness and biodiversity that we destroy 3.Population control – future people will not be able to cope with huge populations
Might be NAG should do anyway Greenhouse gas reduction (future people may have geoengineering solution) Eat less meat because it wastes land (future people may be eating lab meat)
Might be NAG not worth it Very high probability of helpful future knowledge Very high sacrifice and expense for us Examples?
Ikhtisar 1.Sustainable X-ing means saving “enough and as good” for future people 2.Sustainable X-ing is only good if X is permissible to begin with 3.There’s a debate between discounters and defenders of future people 4.Wise planners will avoid NAG-ing.
Bibliography John Broome, “The Ethics of Climate Change,” Scientific American 2008 John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, 1690 Derek Parfit, “Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Social Discount Rate” (1983) Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 1984 Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010) FAO (United Nations), Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options Sahotra Sarkar, Environmental Philosophy: From Theory to Practice (2012) Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (2002)