In his article "The Effects of Climate Change," John Broome claims that he "doubts" that "the money market reveal[s] people's ethical judgements about the value of future well-being" (Broome, 17). He says that if their behaviors in the money market did reflect their ethical judgments, economists couldn't "justify proclaiming an ethically neutral stance and taking the discount rate from the market." Although people might argue that they can do so "on democratic grounds," Broome explains that this is not possible, because this would require "leaving ethical judgments to the public rather than making them for themselves" (17). Since democracy and the democratic process requires debate and discussion, economists should want to share their thoughts with the public instead of keep them to themselves and let the citizens form their opinions on their own.
I'm going to be honest, I was a little bit confused about the specifics of this article. I had to re-read the section regarding the money market a few times before I understood what Broome was trying to say. It isn't that Broom is unclear, just that the topic is a tricky one, and I think that's why it's creating such a problem. It was interesting to hear about climate change from an ethical perspective. Normally it is only investigated on a scientific level. It is true, though, that humans have a tendency to "give less weight to their own future well-being than to their present well-being" (17). We want to make sure that we're comfortable now without worrying about the consequences that might follow later. This is why the climate is changing so drastically. We have no problem creating wonderfully convenient lives for ourselves now, even if the long-term effects directly damage our future well-being. This, I think, is Broome's main point. This is the habit we have to break if we want to slow the drastic climate change.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment