I think I’ve said it before, perhaps in class discussions, that it seems like so much of what I read is about the physical effects of climate change and ways to address the crisis, but not as much about the ethics of the problem. Yesterday I asked Dr. Oliver whether he knew Greta Thunberg’s view on the spiritual relationship we have with nature. I took to Google to see what I could find out. I didn’t find anything after a limited search, but I did find out how powerfully she redirects the focus on the problem from science to ethics.
One
article I read included the following: “Political
leaders tend to dodge questions of ethics in their policymaking and global
debates on climate change…. Climate policy often focuses on “practical”
considerations like efficiency or political feasibility. U.S. climate
negotiators in particular have for decades pushed back against ethically
grounded differentiated responsibilities and resisted top down mandatory
emissions cuts, seeking a more politically palatable option: Voluntary
emissions cuts determined by each country. And some legal scholars say a
climate policy based not on ethics but on self-interest might be more
effective.”
Well,
Greta Thunberg is a giant challenge to that approach. Even if you have seen it
before, I encourage you to watch her short speech at the U.N. against the
background of what we have been discussing. Here is what one writer said about
the speech:
Aristotle claimed in his writing on
rhetoric that speakers are effective in persuading their listeners if the
speaker exhibits three qualities: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.
Speakers exhibit ethos if they convince
listeners that the speaker is motivated by what is right or wrong, not by
self-interest. Greta Thunberg effectively communicated by her choice of words,
rhythm, and emotions that she was motivated by the moral indefensibility of
governments that have refused to do what is necessary to avoid climate change
harms given the facts she stated in support of this conclusion.
Effective speakers demonstrate some
passion about the injustice that is motivating him or her. Greta Thunberg’s
display of anger was palpable and supported by the facts she relied upon.
In an effective speech, the speaker’s
claims and conclusions are clear and logical. The facts which motivated and
supported the premise of her speech, namely that governments’ responses to
climate change are morally repugnant, were clearly stated.
Often
things I hear bring lyrics of old songs to my mind. I cannot watch Greta
without hearing Whitney Houston singing “I believe the children are our future….”
Just watch this TED talk, meet Greta, and see if you don’t agree. [16 years
old!!] (And Betty Mae, I think you’ll like her last words.)
I
have come to believe, as budding environmental ethicist, that we must begin
every conversation about the climate crisis by framing it as a moral issue that
we have a moral, not just a practical, responsibility to address. Be a Greta.
Weekly Participation Summary
09/29 This post
09/29 Posted If Not Morality, How about
Money?
09/28 Comment on Spinoza,
environmentalist?
Week Six Point Total – 5
Six Week Cumulative Point Total – 30
This topic is really interesting to think about, because it does show that there is a lot more to Climate Change than just making some changes to your daily life or to the economy itself.
ReplyDeleteObviously, there is a problem with people who do not even believe that Climate Change exists, but even if they believe they might just feel that way out of scientific reasons.
I think the responsibility we have not only to future generations but also to nature itself, is something that is a big part of it.
As humans, we are mostly superior to everything living on the planet, but does our intelligence, knowledge and resources really mean that we can decide freely about ever other living thing? Morally, that mindset is very wrong. I think especially that knowledge and superiority is something that should put more pressure on us to do good.
Greta is remarkable, and she's not the only one. The more I think about it, the more I do see a spiritual dimension in her message: our responsibility to the generations that "have a tomorrow," or at least as much right to a tomorrow as we have to our present, is a sacred trust we profane by our indifference. In disregarding future generations we inflict harm on humanity itself... and on the rest of living nature. That's spiritually as well as morally indefensible.
ReplyDelete