Oral Exam PDF

1.​ Define utilitarianism. And names of significant theorists (including theoretical differences between these theorists) Founders: Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and Mill’s wife Harriet Taylor developed Bentham’s views. Defining foundational characteristic: a focus on consequences or utility in...

1.​ Define utilitarianism. And names of significant theorists (including theoretical differences between these theorists) Founders: Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and Mill’s wife Harriet Taylor developed Bentham’s views. Defining foundational characteristic: a focus on consequences or utility in terms of what conditions maximize preferences or general well-being. Rationalist and Empirical Focus ​ While Bentham is an act utilitarian, Mill and Taylor are rule utilitarianists. ​ Both positions are empirically based theories, emphasising that living beings try to avoid pain and search for pleasure and satisfaction. Difference between act and rule utilitarianism: ​ Classical act utilitarianism focuses on what acts maximize pleasures or happiness and minimize pain. ○​ Problem: not all pleasures are equally valuable. E.g. sadist pleasures (pain) ​ Rule utilitarianism is an attempt to meet that problem. Mill famously argued for the harm principle as the maximization rule. ○​ What political and moral rule could maximize happiness and pleasure and minimize pain? ○​ BUT: What is the harm? What is pleasure? (it is more material for Mill) ​ Rule stating that any act that does not cause any direct or indirect harm to others should be accepted. ​ Mill distinguished between harm and offence, the latter nor being a case of harm. ​ This enabled Mill and Taylor to argue for freedom of speech, women’s rights and equal status. ​ Theorist Peter Singer's preference in utilitarianism. Theoretical focus in the consequentialist analysis: the variety of preferences in living beings ○​ The focus is mainly on maximizing the utility of the state of affairs, such as freedom, life, and welfare. ​ Singer's position adopts rule utilitarianism at the level of practice but act-utilitarianism at the level of theory. ​ Thus act utilitarian theoretical considerations concerning the general wellbeing (in terms of what preference maximization) could inform the rules we construct ​ The act-theoretical consideration is needed for avoiding that rules are short sighted or counter-productive.  2.​ Define contract theory. And names of significant theorists (including theoretical differences between these theorists). Defining foundational characteristics: Social contract theory explains the origins of society and governance as agreements among individuals to form organized communities. It is both a political and ethical framework for understanding authority, rights, and justice, given an “original position” (Rawls) or ”state of nature” (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) and rational, self-interested beings. ​ Rationalist position ​ Foundational theorists: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau ​ Contemporary influential theorists: John Rawls All contract theories start with some initial theoretical assumptions: 1.​ The contract should solve particular problems. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau start with the state of nature, original anarchy; Rawls describes what he calls the original position. 2.​ The contract should have procedure for selecting moral and legal principles 3.​ All agents are self-interested in the decision-making procedure. ​ Locke: His state of nature includes natural rights—from reason—the right to life, health, liberty, and possessions. Therefore, the point with the social contract is that these rights should be protected. If not, the selected system is corrupt and should be overthrown. ​ Hobbes: in his state of nature there are no rights, just fraud, war and insecurity. So the purpose of the contract is to prevent such problems and install law and punishment under Leviathan, the sovereign artificial man or the state ​ Rousseau: In a hypothetical and peaceful state of nature, a general will is behind a social contract, enabling freedom from oppressive society. The people are sovereign and form a general will, which leads to the social contract.  ​ Rawls: aims to address current political and social tensions. Fairness in society as a core principle) ○​ His main work is the theory of justice, in which he defends certain social and liberal institution arrangements in terms of principles of justice. ○​ The main argument is that rational agents should select principles of justice as if behind a veil of ignorance, an original position before our birth (no bias should exist) ○​ Due to this veil, the agents do not know what society they will have when the contract is designed and signed. Two principles of justice as fairness emerge: 1.​ The equal liberty principle: each person has the same indefensible claim to equal basic liberties that is compatible with the same liberties for all. 2.​ The difference principle: Social and economic equality should: ○​ Be attached to positions open to all under the equality of opportunity. ○​ greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society Responses to Rawls: 1.​ Communitarian theorists emphasized cultural relativism, questioning Rawls’s abstract liberal idealism in the original position (Walzer). Rawls responded to this critique by adopting a communitarian perspective in Political liberalism (1994) 2.​ Liberal theorists argued that Rawls’s theory of justice should be more universal and used as a basis for global justice and cosmopolitanism (Pogge, Beitz) -positive and negative duties. 3.​ Liberal right theorists argued that the difference principle violates basic rights such as property rights (Nozick) 3. Define Kant’s deontology. Defining foundational characteristics: Focus on rational principles, which are stated in terms of duties. There is a single moral duty, the categorical imperative, which are moral laws that all persons must follow regardless of their desires. Theorists: Kant is the foundational theorist for IR liberalism. Based on a universalization test and the motives of the human mind ​ In Kant’s view, the only good motive is goodwill because it is done out of duty and not for any external reason (happiness, pleasure). ​ Kant started 4 related formulas of duty-based goodwill, which he called the categorical imperative. 1.​ Universal law formula 2.​ Humanity formula 3.​ Autonomy formula 4.​ The Kingdom of Ends formula 1.​ The universal law formula: categorical imperative, the first formulation “act only following that maxim through which you will that it becomes a universal law” ​ Only principles accepted by all rational agents could be considered morally acceptable. For example, lying is always wrong. 2.​ The humanity formula: second formulation ​ Act that you always use humanity as an end, never merely as a means. ​ E.g. giving money to beggars (it's mainly for your benefit to feel like a good person; nonetheless, the action can be seen as a good- paradox ○​ E.g., foreign aid- Sweden gives 1 percent of GNI annually by SIDA (a moral superpower being seen as a leader in aid allocation but also economic trade interests?) 3.​ The Autonomy formula: act that your will universal law through its maxims.  -​ Act so you could consistently believe that everyone else should act the same way. -​ Your actions should be based on principles you believe could be universally applied without creating contradictions or inconsistencies. 4.​ The Kingdom of Ends formula: act as if you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of end. Contextual orientation is seen as the most important one of these formulas. ​ All these formulas are based on their rational acceptability and universalizability—they are not agent-specific or cultural-specific but have a global aim and are abstract. ​ In practice, however, Kant sees that these principles can only be realized in certain political arrangements. In a republican state with the rule of law as the leading principle, context is important! ​ 3rd and 4th formulas refer to the law dimension of the categorical imperative. But for some, fairness isn’t fair in terms of the good life (due to the unequal power structures, indirect discrimination, and the need for a more substantive focus on the uniqueness of the individual) ​ It is harder to settle what a good life is than to calculate what justice should be 4. Define virtue ethics and the capability approach. And names of significant theorists. ​ The foundations go back to Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece ​ Defining characteristic: the classical Greek concept of eudaimonia, usually translated as happiness and well-being. ○​ But eudaimonia is more complex: it is not an emotional state within an individual. ​ Eudaimonia can be seen as connected to another concept: phronesis, translated to practical wisdom ○​ Achieved from experiences of social life so that a rational being knows what could be counted as a good person ​ From those experiences, we know that certain social virtues exist, such as friendship, honesty, loyalty, and kindness. ​ Society can also prevent human beings from achieving eudaimonia. ○​ E.g. it can foster a culture that prevents intellectual development Teleology: ​Aristotle’s ethics is teleological, meaning it views life as having a purpose or goal. This purpose is to live virtuously, balancing one’s potentials and striving toward excellence in one’s character. -​ The golden mean was in Aristotle’s view that the goal is the cultivation of virtues ○​ The cultivation of virtues involves finding a balance between extremes (e.g., courage lies between lack of bravery and recklessness) Capability approach: ​ The capability approach is a theoretical framework that entails two normative claims: ○​ first, the claim that the freedom to achieve well-being is of moral importance ○​ second, that well-being should be understood in terms of people’s capabilities to achieve well-being (rather than their right to do so) ​ capabilities are the doings and beings that people can achieve if they so choose, such as being well-nourished, getting married, being educated, and travelling Amartya Sen: ​ Sen’s capability approach is a moral framework and an evaluative approach. It proposes that social arrangements should be evaluated according to the extent to which people can promote or achieve freedom. ○​ People have to promote or achieve functions they value ​ Sen’s key contribution has been to unite the two concepts of freedom and valuable beings and doings since all formulations of capability have two parts. Martha Nussbaum: ​ By focusing on capabilities rather than functions, We don't favor one idea of a good life but focus on offering various options so everyone can choose their own path. ​ outlines 10 capabilities that should be promoted in every democracy: ​ Life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, control over one environment.  5.​ Define Hegel’s theory of recognition. Definition: Hegel’s theory of recognition is a central aspect of his philosophy of self-consciousness, freedom, and identity. Hegel argues that individuals achieve self-consciousness and freedom through mutual recognition with others in a social context. This recognition involves acknowledgment of each other’s autonomy and dignity and is essential for achieving human freedom and ethical life. -​ Hegel argues that individuals don't exist in isolation. Our individuality is shaped by how we are acknowledged/seen by others. The process of recognition is not passive. It involves a dynamic interplay between individuals: ○​ Master-Slave Dialectic: A famous example is the struggle for recognition where one individual seeks to dominate another (Master) , while the other seeks to assert their own independenc (Slave). This is where Mutual Recognition comes into play, the goal is not domination, but mutual recognition, where both individuals acknowledge each other as free and independent beings. ​ Significance of Recognition: ○​ Formation of Selfhood: Recognition is crucial for the development of a stable and meaningful sense of self. ○​ Social and Political Life: Recognition is fundamental for ethical and political life. A just society, according to Hegel, is one where individuals are recognized as equal members with rights and freedoms Criticisms: ​ Some argue that Hegel's theory overemphasizes the role of social recognition and neglects other aspects of selfhood. ​ Critics also point out that the master-slave dialectic can be seen as justifying oppressive social structures.  6.​ Discuss some significant views and problems of authority. Authority is positioned between brute force and persuasion through reason (Hanna Arendt). It reflects the need for order and legitimacy in decision-making, yet its existence often challenges individual freedom and independent thought. Philosophical Roots: ​Philosophers such as Kant, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke have approached authority from different lenses: ​ ​Kant: Authority should align with universal moral imperatives, i.e., acting as if one were a global lawmaker. ​ Aristotle: Authority is tied to virtue and ethical leadership. ​ Hobbes Stressed the necessity of a sovereign authority to prevent chaos in the “state of nature.” ​ Locke: Advocated for authority safeguarding natural rights like life, liberty, and property, allowing revolt if it fails. Theoretical vs. Practical Authority: Richard Friedman identifies two forms of authority: -​ Practical authority means being ‘in authority’, or the fact of authority arising from agreed upon procedure being followed -​ Theoretical authority comes from the authority figure’s expertise or knowledge, which some might call ‘an authority.’ Flathman critiques Friedman, emphasizing that authority must be rooted in shared values and practices rather than a suspension of individual reasoning. 2. Problems of Authority ​Legitimacy and Rationality: Authority often requires individuals to act against their reasoning or preferences, leading to conflicts (e.g., the UN’s support for LGBTQ+ rights versus cultural or religious opposition). Revealing a tension between individual reason and collective decisions. Substance vs. Procedure: The distinction between authority is: -​ A substantive purpose (e.g., protecting rights, as Locke suggests). -​ A formal procedure (e.g., adherence to agreed-upon rules, as Hobbes emphasizes). This highlights Whether international authority requires one, both, or a balance. 3. International Authority Realism and Liberalism: ​ Realist Perspective: Authority is secondary to power; it often aligns with sovereignty and state survival (e.g., Carl Schmitt’s view of absolute authority). ​ Liberal Perspective: Authority is dispersed across states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and corporations (e.g., Amazon, Meta). Liberals see authority evolving into a web of interdependent actors, challenging traditional state sovereignty 4. International Law Challenges in Establishing Laws: ​ The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine illustrates how international laws evolve. While widely discussed, R2P lacks formal legal status due to insufficient state consensus. ​ Informal to Formal Rules: Laws often begin as informal guidelines (e.g., Geneva Conventions) before gaining formal recognition. 5. Contemporary Relevance Globalization and Authority: ​ Globalization has introduced new actors (e.g., NGOs and multinational corporations) into the authority landscape. Climate change, pandemics, and digital governance require cooperative authority beyond traditional state boundaries. Accountability: As authority disperses across multiple actors, ensuring accountability becomes a critical challenge. How can entities like the UN, corporations, and NGOs be held responsible for their decisions  7.​ Contrast the positivist view of international law and some other positions. Positivists view international law as a system of legally binding rules, regardless of their moral implications. In contrast, other positions on international law integrate normative elements, examining what international law should be alongside what it is. 1.​ Positivism in international law: Definition: Positivism regards international law as a system of rules states create through consent. It is based on treaties, customs, and state practice, emphasizing state sovereignty and minimizing moral reasoning. Key Features: ​ Focus on empirical evidence: It looks only at what can be observed and codified. ​ It relies on state consent to create laws, rejecting universal moral authority. ​ Avoids normative judgments, often ignoring broader ethical implications. Criticism: ​ Lang highlights how positivism neglects the normative dimensions of war and international law, leading to a diminished understanding of the moral basis of legal frameworks. ​ It is considered “naive” when it fails to account for ethical complexities, as seen in its limited role in the just war tradition or issues like humanitarian intervention. 2.​ Natural Law Tradition: Definition: Natural law emphasizes that international law is rooted in universal moral principles derived from human nature or divine reasoning. Key Features: ​ Advocates for universal norms that transcend state consent. ​ It relies on ethical principles to justify laws, such as the rights to life, liberty, and justice. Comparison with Positivism: ​ While positivism avoids morality, natural law explicitly connects law with ethics.  ​ Lang notes that modern international law owes much to natural law theories. 3.​ Constructivism: Definition: Constructivists argue that international law is shaped by social norms, ideas, and shared understandings rather than state consent. Key Features: ​ Sees laws as social constructs influenced by changing norms and discourses. ​ Highlights how norms evolve and influence state behaviour. Comparison with Positivism ​ Constructivism’s emphasis on norms and ideas contrasts with positivism’s rigid focus on formal sources of law. ​ Unlike positivism’s static framework, Lang observes how constructivist insights reveal the dynamic nature of international norms. 4.​ Just War Theory (JWT): Definition: JWT provides a moral framework for evaluating the justification and conduct of war, deeply tied to normative reasoning. Key Features: ​ It relies on ethical principles like just cause, proportionality, and discrimination. ​ Has been partially codified in international law, such as the Geneva Conventions. Comparison with Positivism ​ JWT integrates ethics and law, which positivism often resists. ​ Lang notes the influence of thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas in shaping modern legal frameworks with moral foundations. In summary, while positivism views international law through a narrow lens of codified state consent, other approaches (natural law, constructivism, and JWT) emphasize law’s ethical, social, and political dimensions. This broader perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of international norms and their evolving application in a complex global order  8.​ Discuss some problems and arguments for global justice. What is justice? ​ Plato: A society is like a person. It has a “reason” (the educated), “spirit” (the warrior) and “appetite” (the labourer). Similarly, there are different roles in a society. ​ Aristotle: Justice is the right to equality. Karl Marx’- argues that justice is equality. ​ Karl Marx thematized the lack of equality and its potential for revolutions in the capitalist world order. Even capitalism works for its destruction… ​ Lang p. 100, referring to Ronald Dworkin’s idea that equality is a “sovereign virtue”. If a government fails to provide equality, it is “tyrannical”. ​ Therefore, lack of justice as equality is also a risk for governments. Rawls’s theory of justice (based on contract theory-contracted principles of justice) ​ Built on Hume’s idea of Circumstance of justice (conditions where justice arises) ​ Objective circumstance: the physical aspects: the scarcity of resources creates an unequal distribution of resources. ​ Subjective circumstances: the limited generosity of human beings and social constraints, such as different religious and political doctrines ​ The idea of justice is thus a convention, different ideas of what justice could be in different contexts. Hobbes, however, argues that justice comes from authority. ​ Rawls' idea of impartiality is expressed by the concept of the “veil of ignorance”. ​ Ignorance in the original position of what state actors will live in the possible society. ​ Actors are assumed to be self-interested (the subjective of circumstances of justice) ​ Pogge and Beitz attempted to apply Rawls theory of justice on the global level through the theory of moral cosmopolitanism, underlining the need for positive and negative duties of justice for poverty eradication. Singer: The liberal distributive justice argument is Peter Singer’s preference for utilitarianism. ​ The greater good balances the minor harm to ourselves. Act of Utility Maximization ​ That greater good is reducing global inequality rather than reducing global poverty (a lesser good – and the WTO goal). We have a moral obligation to do that. ​ For example, by individual donations from all in the developed part of the world. A small increase in per cent would give enormous sums –taken from the wealthiest persons. Sen’s article discusses the possibility of ethical discourse at the global level- global justice ​ Justice is found in the principle of state sovereignty. ​ the idea of global justice is connected to local ideas about justice ​ Justice rests upon Rawls' idea of impartiality. (no bias should exist) ​ Sen argues that even Hobbes is forced to have some idea of justice before submitting the Leviathan. ​ The social contract in Hobbes rests upon the idea of circumstances of justice. Sen’s four points against Rawls: 1.​ Public reasoning goes across borders (the Iraq war 2003, pandemics in Africa) 2.​ theories of justice lie in comparing social alternatives, none of which are ideal (abolition of slavery, 19th century). 3.​ Comparative exercises may not yield complete agreements (e.g. abolitionists of slavery could disagree on social and political issues) 4.​ Discourse on justice must not be confined to institutions but include behavioural patterns (greed, corruption) thus, global justice does not necessarily entail a perfect world, but a world better than without agreed principles of justice ​ Since the modern world departs from ideal justice, it is important to have guidance on how we can rank imperfect societies differently: for example with the HDI (based on Nussbaum’s s capability approach) 9. Define just war theory and its main concepts. 1.​ Jus ad bellum, the “right to go to war.” This angel concerns six aspects, and all need to be met. ​ a.​ Just cause: does some reason justify the violence? Usually, only self-defence is considered as a just cause. ​ There is an aggressor (with an unjust cause), and the violent counter-aggression of that aggressor is just. To attack is unjust; to defend is just. ​ Even punishment attacks can be justified along this line. A punishment is intended to prevent further attacks from an aggressor. ​ There are two ways in which one can determine the just cause 1.​ Pre-emptive action a.​ There is evidence that shows that the enemy is about to attack 2.​ Preventive action a.​ The enemy might attack b) Right authority. Power is to come together in concert, a political community. ​ This community can be seen as legitimate from the inside and the outside (the authority issue): Who is in charge of the order within the political community? Some governmental organisations are seen as legitimate, with a representative level of authority. ​ This means no individuals and minor, loose groups can be seen as right authority. ○​ After Westphalia and in International Law, states are usually considered the only actors with a self-evident “right authority”. ​ However, in a civil war, a “non-state” actor, such as a fairly large part of the population in a given geographical area, can be the right authority. Again, power is to come together in concert (Arendt). ​ In addition, we have the UN and the Security Council. The latter is also seen as a “right authority” but depends on state actors for its actions. Arendt’s view is again illustrative (power… etc.). c) Right intentions or motives. The right intention is survival. Pride and glory are not the right intentions. ​ This is more controversial than the previous aspects. Following Walzer, we can say that no actor has entirely pure motives. In particular, if the war isn’t self-defence but pre-emptive, it can be difficult to ensure that other intentions might be involved. ​ For example, the Iraq war (2003), which was politically asserted to be a pre-emptive war, has been assessed in terms of American oil interests. ○​ But at the same time, focusing on the right intentions might obscure other aspects, such as just cause. If the cause is just, why bother about intentions? d) Last resort. A prudential rule… Violence can be the option when all other possible alternatives have been exhausted. This criteria has the point of slowing down the process. War is a risky business. ​ It shouldn’t be the natural first choice. ​ Problem: stalled organizations, particularly in possible “humanitarian interventions” (recall R2P). ○​ From the UN angle, has the last resort perhaps stalled the organisation, preventing it from taking action? ​ Famous case: Rwanda. Why didn't the UN act? Why did the UN leave the problem in sight? Bureaucracy within the UN, focussing on diplomatic solutions… ○​ And Syria… and Yemen… e) Chance of success. A second prudential rule… If winning is impossible, why initiate self-defence, especially if it causes pointless damage to the attacked part? But of course, it is hard to know. ​ How much is needed for defeating an aggressor? Many cases show that winning wars is difficult, even for a superpower. ​ Standing up against an unjust and overwhelming aggressor can be morally right.  ​ On p. 142, Lang refers to what has been seen as a historical myth: the Polish cavalry self-defence against German tanks in WWII, 1939. Historians claim that this is a caricature of the facts 2. Jus in bello. The “right conduct in war”. A focus on the actions in war in terms of proportion and targets. a.​ Proportionality. As Lang notes, this concerns both ad bellum and in bello. ​ The ad bellum aspect concerns the costs in proportion to the benefits. One problem is asymmetry: if one power is too overwhelming, the other could resort to extreme countermeasures (terrorism, etc.). ​ The in Bello aspect is that counter-attacks on an aggressor should be limited. Again, we could consider the cases of “supreme emergency” and “dirty hands.” ​ The “double effect” (collateral damage): civilians are not appropriate targets in jus in bello (see below). However, they can be killed as side effects when military targets are attacked. If appropriate measures for avoiding killing civilians have been taken, the double effect is jus in Bello. ​ This is frequently a problem in civil war when the guerrilla soldiers hide among civilians to compensate for their often weak force. What is proportionality in such situations? b.​ Discrimination. This is the doctrine that only military targets are justified as targets. ​ The extension of this principle is a matter of debate. But surrendering soldiers and prisoners of war are not justified targets. Discrimination relates also to the double effect doctrine above. ​ This suggests that only combatants in combat are justified targets, which also establishes the rule that combatants must be able to distinguish from non-combatants. ​ Thus, soldiers in uniforms with clear national characteristics, exposed weapons and a unified command structure are expected.  ​ The “little green men” that appeared in Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 are inconsistent with this rule. 3. Jus post bellum is a recently invented conceptual aspect. It concerns the end of a war, “justice after the war.” It concerns the two (or more) parts, their future relations, and the peace process post-war. ​ The core focus is to stabilize the peace process and restore order. It can involve short- or long-term negotiations, and various representatives from the international community. ​ The UN has taken an active role in this process, particularly in cases of humanitarian interventions. ​ It could be winners and losers or a ceasefire with no clear winner. It can easily be politicized and endless (as in the case of Israel vs. Palestine, North Korea vs. South Korea, or Azerbaijan vs. Georgia). No clear method is available. Ad hoc solutions are common 3 with renewed attempts. ​ It has also been discussed whether there is a “jus ad vim,” which Walzer introduced in the preface to the 4th edition of Just and Unjust Wars in 2006. (This is beyond Lang.) ​ Jus ad Vim, they use force (but do not declare war) or violent force short of war. ○​ This could be a concept for discussing the right to kill perceived adversaries with drones or with some other measures usually targeted to individuals with combatant capabilities (e.g., terrorist leaders, etc.). ​ One angle to this is that weak states might lack the capability to deal with violent local non-state actors, for example, Afghanistan and its Taliban rebellion or the cases of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. If the state can’t uphold the monopoly of violence, and there is a risk that insurgency groups act internationally, who is then in charge? ​ In the tradition, we have the case of assassinations (short of war). The question is, however, if this is just war… to kill people outside the context of real combat, armed or unarmed. Critical IR would see this as a case of “state terrorism.” 10. Describe how virtue ethics could be used in environmental ethics. Illustrate the problem of “petro-masculinity” (Daggett’s article). ​ Lang suggests that environmental issues could be addressed by phronesis (practical wisdom) as a virtue. ​ Given that virtue, we need to realize that we are part of nature as our global biosphere and dependent on it. ​ For this, we need to consider new scientific knowledge to know how to reduce our emissions. ​ Understanding the impact of climate change is crucial. Prioritizing responsibility for the future over present-day rights is essential for developing new, shared rules that address this challenge. ​ Lang points to the role of activist leadership here (p. 177) and its possible impact. ○​ He even suggests (p. 200) that IPT as a field is a practice rather than a theory. Cara Daggett’s article (2018) offers another possible explanation framed by the concept of “petro-masculinity.” ​ Noting all the measures the Trump government takes against climate issues (including exemplifying climate change denial), she sees a relation between these measures and the authoritarianism tendencies that Trump showed. ​ One angle to this is the protection of economic interests: “Climate denial serves fossil-fueled capitalist interests.” ○​ ​ But the other angle concerns identity: the concept of petro-masculinity ○​ “emphasises the relationship – both technically and effectively, ideationally and materially – between fossil fuels and white patriarchal orders”. ​ The connection between the fossil fuel industry, traditional masculine ideals, and the rise of right-wing ideologies. ​ Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Saudi-Arabia and are large fossil fuels producers and possible “non-white” or at least “developing countries” (I prefer non-racist terminology). ​ And patriarchal orders are all over the globe… (a universal moral order across cultures?) ​ She seems to note that on p. 29: “Petro-masculinity, like fossil fuel systems, arguably has global dimensions. However, like other masculinities, petro-masculinity should be understood as manifesting in multiple, and locally specific, ways.” ​ There is also a postcolonial angle in the article (p. 31), shifting focus from possible agency in the global south to responsibilities in the global north: “Similarly, the authoritarian practices required by fossil capital in the global South were often geographically separated from liberal forms of governance in the West. This made it possible for many Westerners to remain ignorant of their complicity in fossil authoritarianism and to continue to believe that fossil fuels and liberal democracy are natural and inevitable partners”. ​ But the main focus is on Trump’s “petro-nostalgia=… (pp. 31ff). ○​ …which can explain the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (from that level of analysis) 11. Define the “future vs. present” problem in environmental ethics (Broome, several chapters, but mainly ch. 8), and how emissions relate to issues of justice (Broome, ch. 4). Most current political processes regarding climate change involve sacrifices among nations and individuals. We question how this sacrifice should be made fair. Fairness is related to justice. Emissions of greenhouse gases are normally unjust, harming people and leading to injustices. The long-term issues in climate change politics invokes moral issues. Two examples (from Broome): a.​ Harm and justice. ​ Emissions harm because they cause changes in temperature, which can lead to extreme weather, forest fires, etc. ○​ §§§The general pattern is that rich people harm poor people. Those who cause the most harm often affect those who cause the least. Broome distinguishes between justice and goodness as two types of moral duties: 1.​ Duties of goodness: To improve the world and benefit everyone. 2.​ Duties of justice: To avoid harming others. Broome argues that justice outweighs goodness. For example, Robin Hood helped many people (goodness), but stealing violated the duty of justice, making his actions morally wrong. There are seven ways we do this injustice. 1.​ We act so we emit greenhouse gas. 2.​ The emission harm is serious (it kills people). 3.​ We don’t harm by accident since we know that we harm. This requires compensation. 4.​ But we don’t compensate the victims! 5.​ We emit for our benefit. 6.​ The harm done by the rich is not fully reciprocated (that is, the harm is asymmetric: more harm comes from the rich to the poor than vice versa).  7.​ We can easily reduce our emissions (stop eating meat, stop driving fossil fuel cars, end Christmas shopping, avoid flying, etc.) ​ Broome argues, therefore, that individuals have duties of justice, whereas governments have duties of goodness. B. Future generations The moral issue here is the future versus the present. ​ Broome attacks this problem using a cost-benefit analysis: “How do increases in future well-being [benefit] weigh against sacrifices [costs] of present well-being?” ○​ The question is whether future well-being should be “discounted” from the present so that it is less valuable than current well-being… ​ Or if the present needs to make a big sacrifice (e.g., half of our income), even if future well-being would be far better off than the present (“the utilitarian view”) ​ …this is a view that Broom rejects: well-being is equally valuable wherever it occurs - he bases this not on utilitarianism but on “prioritarianism”: priority is here given to those that are worse off in the distribution of advantages ​ However, future “commodities” can be discounted since we expect future products to have better technology, production, etc. ​ In Broome’s view, the present is not morally required to make a big sacrifice for future well-being. ​ So, in the present world, we need to end emissions (the sacrifice). Still, since we will leave a lot of resources to the future world (natural and artificial, including technology and knowledge), we can consume more of “artificial and natural resources”(p. 44) at present given that we stop emitting. 12. Discuss some moral problems concerning religion, given the problem of Plato’s divine command theory. Plato's Divine Command Theory proposes that actions are morally right simply because God commands them. This theory raises several significant moral problems: ​ The arbitrariness of Morality: If morality is only based on God's will, then God could arbitrarily/ contradictory command anything, even actions that seem inherently wrong (e.g., cruelty, genocide). This undermines the idea of objective moral values. ​ The Euthyphro Dilemma: This classic dilemma poses two options: 1.​ Is something good because it's good, and the gods like it? 2.​ Or is something good just because the gods say it is ○​ Is something good because God commands it to be so? This makes morality arbitrary. ○​ If something is good merely because God commands it, then God could declare anything unjust as good. This raises concerns about the nature of divine authority. ​ Motivation for Moral Behavior: If the only reason to be moral is fear of divine punishment or desire for divine reward, then true moral motivation is lacking. Genuine morality should stem from a sense of ingrained right and wrong. ​ Interfaith Conflict: Different religions often have conflicting moral codes. If morality is solely based on divine command, then there's no objective way to resolve these conflicts. ​ Blind Obedience: The Divine Command Theory can lead to dangerous situations where individuals blindly obey religious authority, even when those commands are harmful or unjust. Beyond the Dilemma: ​ Natural Law: Some philosophers argue for a natural law independent of divine command but reflecting God's rational order of creation. This attempts to coordinate divine will with objective moral principles. ​ Virtue Ethics: This approach focuses on cultivating virtuous character traits rather than adhering strictly to rules or commands. It emphasizes the importance of wisdom, compassion, and justice