Question 1

It isn't easy to get people to do something about climate change, and we all know that it's an enormously important problem to address. Given this, is it irresponsible to argue that we aren't obligated not to drive wastefully? Defend your answer, being sure to consider and reply to objections.

Accepted Answer

-Include a thesis that's focused and appropriate given the assignment.
-Clearly and succinctly state the main argument for the thesis.
-Correctly identify and defend the argument's controversial premises using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.
-Develop and reply to at least one objection.

Question 2

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong says that "side-stepping" through virtue ethics doesn't help us understand our moral obligations and obscures the issue. What does he mean by this, and why are we supposed to believe it? After answering these questions, do your best to reply to Sinnott-Armstrong from the perspective of a virtue ethicist.

Accepted Answer

-Correctly explain Sinnott-Armstrong's criticism of virtue ethics.
-Develop a thoughtful reply on behalf of the virtue ethicist, demonstrating understanding of that position, as well as correctly identifying and defending controversial claims using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.

Question 3

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong doesn't discuss every imaginable principle. Try to come up with one that (a) isn't vulnerable to the objections he discusses and (b) implies that we shouldn't drive wastefully. Then, imagine how Sinnott-Armstrong might criticize the principle you propose.

Accepted Answer

-Propose a principle that meets the two conditions.
-Develop a plausible objection to the principle on Sinnott-Armstrong's behalf, using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.

Question 4

Which of the following is NOT an assumption Sinnott-Armstrong sets forth about global warming?
A) It has begun and is likely to increase over the next century
B) Humans are responsible for a significant amount of it
C) The poor will be hurt most of all
D) Governments, especially the biggest and richest, can mitigate global warming
E) Individuals, not governments, bear most of the responsibility for global warming

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong does not assume that individuals bear most of the responsibility for global warming; rather, he discusses the role of governments and collective action in addressing the issue.

Question 5

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, one way to conﬁrm the truth of my moral intuitions would be to derive them from a general moral principle.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong suggests that moral intuitions can be confirmed by deriving them from a general moral principle, which provides a rational basis for the intuitions.

Question 6

The principles that Sinnott-Armstrong presents throughout the article are ________:
A) The premises of his argument
B) Meant to show that his conclusion is valid
C) Principles that he criticizes to support his conclusion
D) The same principle but in different words
E) Examples of praiseworthy arguments about global warming

Accepted Answer

The answer of The principles that Sinnott-Armstrong presents throughout the...

Question 7

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, who's morally obligated to fight global-warming?
A) Environmentalists are
B) Companies are
C) Individuals are
D) Governments are
E) No one is

Accepted Answer

Governments are seen as having the resources and authority to implement large-scale changes necessary to combat global warming effectively.

Question 8

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, we have a moral obligation to avoid driving for fun because it harms the environment and we don't gain anything important from it.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Sinnott-Armstrong, we have a moral...

Question 9

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, going on a drive just for fun causes harm to others.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Sinnott-Armstrong, going on a drive...

Question 10

Some environmentalists withdraw into a simple life where they use very little fossil fuels. What does Sinnott-Armstrong say about this behavior?
A) It is exactly what they ought to be doing
B) It is actually harming others
C) It is counterproductive insofar as it prevents them from focusing on political change
D) It is a mistake, since fossil fuels aren't the primary cause of global warming
E) It is important because lots of people look up to environmentalists

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that focusing on individual actions like reducing personal fossil fuel use can distract from more impactful political and systemic changes needed to address climate change.

Question 11

Sinnott-Armstrong claims that there is no way to derive a literal contradiction from the maxim that people may expel greenhouse gases. This is an objection to what principle?
A) The harm principle
B) The universalizability principle
C) The means principle
D) The ends principle
E) The virtue principle

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong's objection is to the universalizability principle, which suggests that an action is only morally permissible if it can be universally applied without contradiction. He argues that emitting greenhouse gases does not lead to a literal contradiction when universalized.

Question 12

Sinnott-Armstrong points out that greenhouse gases are perfectly fine in small quantities; the problem emerges only when there's too much of them. This is part of an objection to what principle?
A) The harm principle
B) The universalizability principle
C) The means principle
D) The ends principle
E) The virtue principle

Accepted Answer

The harm principle suggests that actions are wrong if they cause harm. Sinnott-Armstrong's point highlights that greenhouse gases are not harmful in small amounts, challenging the idea that their mere presence is inherently harmful.

Question 13

What's the result if it turns out that we are left with no defensible principle to support the claim that I have a moral obligation not to drive a gas guzzler just for fun?
A) We should stop stigmatizing people who drive SUVs
B) It would show that this claim is false
C) It only shows that we do not know whether it is morally wrong
D) Environmentalists are wrong in their beliefs
E) It would be impossible for someone to come up with a defensible principle

Accepted Answer

It only shows that we do not know whether it is morally wrong

Quiz 32: Its Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations

It isn't easy to get people to do something about climate change, and we all know that it's an enormously important problem to address. Given this, is it irresponsible to argue that we aren't obligated not to drive wastefully? Defend your answer, being sure to consider and reply to objections.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong doesn't discuss every imaginable principle. Try to come up with one that (a) isn't vulnerable to the objections he discusses and (b) implies that we shouldn't drive wastefully. Then, imagine how Sinnott-Armstrong might criticize the principle you propose.

Which of the following is NOT an assumption Sinnott-Armstrong sets forth about global warming?

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, one way to conﬁrm the truth of my moral intuitions would be to derive them from a general moral principle.

The principles that Sinnott-Armstrong presents throughout the article are ________:

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, who's morally obligated to fight global-warming?

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, we have a moral obligation to avoid driving for fun because it harms the environment and we don't gain anything important from it.

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, going on a drive just for fun causes harm to others.

Some environmentalists withdraw into a simple life where they use very little fossil fuels. What does Sinnott-Armstrong say about this behavior?

Sinnott-Armstrong claims that there is no way to derive a literal contradiction from the maxim that people may expel greenhouse gases. This is an objection to what principle?

Sinnott-Armstrong points out that greenhouse gases are perfectly fine in small quantities; the problem emerges only when there's too much of them. This is part of an objection to what principle?

What's the result if it turns out that we are left with no defensible principle to support the claim that I have a moral obligation not to drive a gas guzzler just for fun?