In this article I want to suggest that much of the use we make of fossil-fuelled cars might be morally wrong, or at the very least ought to be subject to serious moral assessment. Rather than adopting just one kind of ethical framework, though, I will try to show that the non-essential driving of fossil-fuelled cars is morally questionable according to reasonable interpretations of four major contemporary approaches in moral philosophy: the doctrine of double effect, utilitarianism, contractualism, and virtue ethics.
Double Effect Driving
Driving a fossil-fuelled car (or even just turning on the engine) causes harms of many different kinds. It pollutes the air, exacerbating symptoms of cardiovascular diseases and releasing carcinogens; it intensifies greenhouse effects, such as climate change; it increases the risk of killing, injuring, and maiming people; it reduces the public space available for other uses; it generates noise pollution and stress; it maintains sedentary lifestyles; and so on.
I take it that, all other things being equal, causing harm is morally wrong. There is no plausible ethical framework that suggests that we ought to cause harm without further justification. But causing harm can nevertheless be justified within different ethical frameworks in different ways. We will look at four ways in which the harm-caused by driving fossil-fuelled cars might be justified.
Consider, for a baseline moral assessment, idling, where a car has its engine running without the car moving. It is illegal in the UK and elsewhere to idle your engine unnecessarily.
هذه القصة مأخوذة من طبعة June/July 2024 من Philosophy Now.
ابدأ النسخة التجريبية المجانية من Magzter GOLD لمدة 7 أيام للوصول إلى آلاف القصص المتميزة المنسقة وأكثر من 9,000 مجلة وصحيفة.
بالفعل مشترك ? تسجيل الدخول
هذه القصة مأخوذة من طبعة June/July 2024 من Philosophy Now.
ابدأ النسخة التجريبية المجانية من Magzter GOLD لمدة 7 أيام للوصول إلى آلاف القصص المتميزة المنسقة وأكثر من 9,000 مجلة وصحيفة.
بالفعل مشترك? تسجيل الدخول
Anselm (1033-1109)
Martin Jenkins recalls the being of the creator of the ontological argument.
Is Brillo Box an Illustration?
Thomas E. Wartenberg uses Warhol's work to illustrate his theory of illustration.
Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.
The Funnel of Righteousness
Peter Worley tells us how to be right, righter, rightest.
We're as Smart as the Universe Gets
James Miles argues, among other things, that E.T. will be like Kim Kardashian, and that the real threat of advanced AI has been misunderstood.
Managing the Mind
Roger Haines contemplates how we consciously manage our minds.
lain McGilchrist's Naturalized Metaphysics
Rogério Severo looks at the brain to see the world anew.
Love & Metaphysics
Peter Graarup Westergaard explains why love is never just physical, with the aid of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism.
Mary Leaves Her Room
Nigel Hems asks, does Mary see colours differently outside her room?
From Birds To Brains
Jonathan Moens considers whether emergence can explain minds from brains.