Climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility. / Bell, Derek; Swaffield, Joanne; Peeters, Wouter.

In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 32, No. 4, 08.2019, p. 611-632.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bell, Derek ; Swaffield, Joanne ; Peeters, Wouter. / Climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility. In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2019 ; Vol. 32, No. 4. pp. 611-632.

Bibtex

@article{a0a94890c3154d2d89211cb7714be6a5,
title = "Climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility",
abstract = "What responsibilities does each of us have to reduce or limit our greenhouse gas emissions? Advocates of individual emissions reductions acknowledge that there are limits to what we can reasonably demand from individuals. Climate ethics has not yet systematically explored those limits. Instead, it has become popular to suggest that such judgements should be {\textquoteleft}context-sensitive{\textquoteright} but this does not tell us what role different contextual factors should play in our moral thinking. The current approach to theory development in climate ethics is not likely to be the most effective way to fill this gap. In existing work, climate ethicists use hypothetical cases to consider what can be reasonably demanded of individuals in particular situations. In con- trast, {\textquoteleft}climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility{\textquoteright} uses qualitative social science methods to collect original data in which real individuals describe their own situ- ations. These real-life cases are more realistic, more detailed and cover a broader range of circumstances than hypothetical cases. Normative analysis of real-life cases can help us to develop a more systematic understanding of the role that different contextual factors should play in determining individual climate responsibilities. It can also help us to avoid the twin dangers of {\textquoteleft}idealization{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}special pleading{\textquoteright}.",
keywords = "Climate change, Climate ethics, Ethnography, Flying, Idealization, Individual responsibility",
author = "Derek Bell and Joanne Swaffield and Wouter Peeters",
note = "“This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org 10.1007/s10806-019-09794-z",
year = "2019",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1007/s10806-019-09794-z",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "611--632",
journal = "Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics",
issn = "1187-7863",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility

AU - Bell, Derek

AU - Swaffield, Joanne

AU - Peeters, Wouter

N1 - “This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org 10.1007/s10806-019-09794-z

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - What responsibilities does each of us have to reduce or limit our greenhouse gas emissions? Advocates of individual emissions reductions acknowledge that there are limits to what we can reasonably demand from individuals. Climate ethics has not yet systematically explored those limits. Instead, it has become popular to suggest that such judgements should be ‘context-sensitive’ but this does not tell us what role different contextual factors should play in our moral thinking. The current approach to theory development in climate ethics is not likely to be the most effective way to fill this gap. In existing work, climate ethicists use hypothetical cases to consider what can be reasonably demanded of individuals in particular situations. In con- trast, ‘climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility’ uses qualitative social science methods to collect original data in which real individuals describe their own situ- ations. These real-life cases are more realistic, more detailed and cover a broader range of circumstances than hypothetical cases. Normative analysis of real-life cases can help us to develop a more systematic understanding of the role that different contextual factors should play in determining individual climate responsibilities. It can also help us to avoid the twin dangers of ‘idealization’ and ‘special pleading’.

AB - What responsibilities does each of us have to reduce or limit our greenhouse gas emissions? Advocates of individual emissions reductions acknowledge that there are limits to what we can reasonably demand from individuals. Climate ethics has not yet systematically explored those limits. Instead, it has become popular to suggest that such judgements should be ‘context-sensitive’ but this does not tell us what role different contextual factors should play in our moral thinking. The current approach to theory development in climate ethics is not likely to be the most effective way to fill this gap. In existing work, climate ethicists use hypothetical cases to consider what can be reasonably demanded of individuals in particular situations. In con- trast, ‘climate ethics with an ethnographic sensibility’ uses qualitative social science methods to collect original data in which real individuals describe their own situ- ations. These real-life cases are more realistic, more detailed and cover a broader range of circumstances than hypothetical cases. Normative analysis of real-life cases can help us to develop a more systematic understanding of the role that different contextual factors should play in determining individual climate responsibilities. It can also help us to avoid the twin dangers of ‘idealization’ and ‘special pleading’.

KW - Climate change

KW - Climate ethics

KW - Ethnography

KW - Flying

KW - Idealization

KW - Individual responsibility

U2 - 10.1007/s10806-019-09794-z

DO - 10.1007/s10806-019-09794-z

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 611

EP - 632

JO - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

JF - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

SN - 1187-7863

IS - 4

ER -