In Ethics, Public Policy, and Global Warming, Dale Jamieson argues that the issues surrounding climate change cannot be solved simply through scientific decision making; instead, he claims that morality plays a significant part in our quest to right the damage done to the environment. Jamieson describes traditional economic thought processes as being insufficient, as they merely deal with evaluating costs and benefits of a given situation. This way of thinking elicits criticisms similar to those of meta-ethical moral relativism. Meta-ethical moral relativism is flawed seeing that any claim can be made relative to virtually anything else in the world, so how does one make that decision? In the context of Jamieson’s paper, economic deliberation is flawed because there are infinite combinations of perspectives from which to assess costs and benefits. Are costs at the expense of people, corporations, animals, or trees? Then, in turn, to whom are the benefits allocated? …show more content…
He explores questions of morality and responsibility humans have to each other, to nature, and to the planet. Jamison calls out the inconsistencies that inherently exist in any society’s value system given that many values are implicit or otherwise obscured, like an iceberg. His discussion draws to a close with the claim that we must alter our values and ideals regarding responsibility to combat climate change. He suggests we “focus more on character and less on calculating probable outcomes” (84), which he warns hinder behaviors needed to adequately respond to climate change. Finally, he concludes by suggesting that people of integrity are the key to defeating climate