为什么在气候紧急情况下可以生孩子?

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Journal of Applied Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1111/japp.12756
Elizabeth Cripps
{"title":"为什么在气候紧急情况下可以生孩子?","authors":"Elizabeth Cripps","doi":"10.1111/japp.12756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Having a child is one of the highest‐carbon decisions made by affluent individuals. Does this uncomfortable fact mean they should limit biological family size? This salient question also forces attention to two key issues. One is just <jats:italic>how</jats:italic> demanding individual climate justice duties are. The other is the danger of ‘ivory tower’ reasoning by privileged philosophers. On some topics, it is imperative carefully to integrate philosophical discussion with sociological and psychological research. Assuming individual climate justice duties include cutting one's carbon impact, the discussion goes as follows. Should affluent couples and individuals have no biological children, because of the carbon cost? Not unless emissions‐cutting duties are extremely demanding, or we make dangerous, generalised socio‐psychological assumptions. Is there any individual duty to consider carbon impact when determining family size? Yes, because individual emissions‐cutting duties are more than trivially demanding. Should all duty‐bearers ‘stop at’ some fixed maximum number of biological kids? Not unless that number is one and we are prepared to accept very demanding individual emissions‐cutting duties <jats:italic>and</jats:italic> make problematic sociological assumptions. Finally, the article outlines three further individual duties following from the ‘uncomfortable fact’: to raise good climate citizens, become activists, and cut the family carbon footprint.","PeriodicalId":47057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why it Can Be Permissible to Have Kids in the Climate Emergency\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Cripps\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/japp.12756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Having a child is one of the highest‐carbon decisions made by affluent individuals. Does this uncomfortable fact mean they should limit biological family size? This salient question also forces attention to two key issues. One is just <jats:italic>how</jats:italic> demanding individual climate justice duties are. The other is the danger of ‘ivory tower’ reasoning by privileged philosophers. On some topics, it is imperative carefully to integrate philosophical discussion with sociological and psychological research. Assuming individual climate justice duties include cutting one's carbon impact, the discussion goes as follows. Should affluent couples and individuals have no biological children, because of the carbon cost? Not unless emissions‐cutting duties are extremely demanding, or we make dangerous, generalised socio‐psychological assumptions. Is there any individual duty to consider carbon impact when determining family size? Yes, because individual emissions‐cutting duties are more than trivially demanding. Should all duty‐bearers ‘stop at’ some fixed maximum number of biological kids? Not unless that number is one and we are prepared to accept very demanding individual emissions‐cutting duties <jats:italic>and</jats:italic> make problematic sociological assumptions. Finally, the article outlines three further individual duties following from the ‘uncomfortable fact’: to raise good climate citizens, become activists, and cut the family carbon footprint.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12756\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12756","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生孩子是富裕人群做出的含碳量最高的决定之一。这一令人不安的事实是否意味着他们应该限制家庭人口数量?这个突出的问题也迫使人们关注两个关键问题。一个是个人气候正义责任的要求有多高。另一个是特权哲学家的 "象牙塔 "推理的危险性。在某些问题上,必须谨慎地将哲学讨论与社会学和心理学研究结合起来。假设个人的气候正义义务包括减少个人的碳影响,那么讨论如下。富裕的夫妇和个人是否应该因为碳成本而不生育子女?除非减排义务要求极高,或者我们做出了危险的、笼统的社会心理假设,否则不会。在决定家庭规模时,个人是否有义务考虑碳影响?有,因为个人的减排责任不仅仅是微不足道的要求。所有责任承担者都应该 "止步于 "某个固定的最大亲生子女数量吗?除非这个数字是一个,而且我们准备接受非常苛刻的个人减排义务,并做出有问题的社会学假设。最后,文章概述了 "令人不安的事实 "之后的三项个人责任:培养良好的气候公民、成为积极分子和减少家庭碳足迹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why it Can Be Permissible to Have Kids in the Climate Emergency
Having a child is one of the highest‐carbon decisions made by affluent individuals. Does this uncomfortable fact mean they should limit biological family size? This salient question also forces attention to two key issues. One is just how demanding individual climate justice duties are. The other is the danger of ‘ivory tower’ reasoning by privileged philosophers. On some topics, it is imperative carefully to integrate philosophical discussion with sociological and psychological research. Assuming individual climate justice duties include cutting one's carbon impact, the discussion goes as follows. Should affluent couples and individuals have no biological children, because of the carbon cost? Not unless emissions‐cutting duties are extremely demanding, or we make dangerous, generalised socio‐psychological assumptions. Is there any individual duty to consider carbon impact when determining family size? Yes, because individual emissions‐cutting duties are more than trivially demanding. Should all duty‐bearers ‘stop at’ some fixed maximum number of biological kids? Not unless that number is one and we are prepared to accept very demanding individual emissions‐cutting duties and make problematic sociological assumptions. Finally, the article outlines three further individual duties following from the ‘uncomfortable fact’: to raise good climate citizens, become activists, and cut the family carbon footprint.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
期刊最新文献
The Story of Romantic Love and Polyamory Is the Gender Pension Gap Fair? AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles? Parental Imprisonment and Children's Right Not to be Separated from Their Parents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1