Introduction
More than 100 scientists issued a dire warning in Bioscience in 2022: The world is battling a climate emergency. That puts me an ordinary person reading their words — in a twist of knots. The major climate indicators, from global temperatures to greenhouse gas levels to climate-related natural disasters, keep breaking records yearly (Ripple et al., 2022). The ethical failure is as simple as it is painful: Governments and corporations have not taken the necessary emergency steps to reduce emissions and transform society’s dependence on fossil fuels. I think about my baby niece, whose life will bear the scars of an ever-more-anxious world, and whether she will have kids of her own, and I feel nauseous. The climate crisis affects a diverse array of people and places, whether marginal groups in the Global South facing the imminent collapse of food and water systems or our own coastal communities and small island nations staring at the rising seas in the face. The well-being of people today and in the future hangs in the balance if emissions keep going up and result in 3°C of warming or more this century. Future trajectories look simple and stark. Either we carry on with ever-increasing fossil fuel extraction and rising emissions to feed profits, or we undertake a breathtakingly fast reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, protect and restore ecosystems, stabilize population growth and build a sustainable world.
Thesis
If decision-makers had acted based on Kant’s duty ethics, institutions would have taken the right step in responding to the imminent climate crisis Robinson & Shine, (2018). When we speak of Kant’s universal principle, as an average individual, it is a tremendous moral check on politics related to the world climate. Suppose we must logically approve the worldwide implementation of emitting greenhouse gases by falling into self-contradiction with developed nations, specifically those carrying a historical burden of emissions. In that case, Kant provides us with a superior principle that trumps a cost-benefit analysis and makes actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gases a moral imperative.
Supporting Point 1
For instance, Kantian duty ethics offers a better ethical basis than utilitarianism regarding climate justice and the protection of communities that are most affected. However, utilitarianism is not concerned with the inherent value in each person but only considers aggregate utility irrespective of race, gender or other groupings. The poor and minority groups residing in less developed countries are the most vulnerable in regards to drought, famine and drying-up of fresh water; having said that, it is evident that they have a fundamental human right to fair living conditions whose superiority over the advantages generated to oil interests When one considers farmers in Africa slogging out years of low yield harvesting seasons then that Utilitarian reckoning would have caused me heartache that that suffering can be justified on a theoretical basis since it would have resulted into maximum economic output by not controlling pollution. Conversely, Kant states that people should not be considered mere means. Still, they reduce emissions, becoming a universal imperative that nobody can evade due to their wealth, status or nationality. Intrinsic value is within each and every single individual impacted.
Justification
Strict utilitarianism may involve infringement upon minority rights and be harmful to them. Still, it would remain justifiable as long as it leads to an overall increase in global happiness. However, it permits massive suffering of innocent, vulnerable people, which any Kantian ethical code vehemently disapproves of. This implies that welfare and fundamental human rights for all affected by climate change, particularly in developing countries whose net utility may be harmful, their corporate interests and majority conveniences notwithstanding. So, Kant’s duty ethics constitute the soundest moral foundation for helping the underprivileged who are at the forefront of fighting against the climate change threat.
Supporting Point 2
Also, Kantian ethics are more morally sound than virtue ethics concerning the urgent nature of climate action in response to the rapidly increasing trend of natural disasters and emissions (Ripple et al., 2022). Essentially, Kantian ethics is all about being good without reason but for the sake of goodness. With the killer heat waves, flooding, devastation, and fires in wildlands worldwide, we need the moral imperative to pass emission-halting policies immediately – without caring about people’s concern, hope, and optimism. Billions of lives are at stake due to this phenomenon, which entails people’s livelihoods and well-being. This includes vulnerable populations globally and even unborn generations that have nothing to do with bringing about courage or sacrifice. Hence, time is running out, and it.
Justification
Simply put, the vague appeal to hopes for future quick-fix technological solutions is insufficient to address breaches in human rights from fossil fuel Levy’s (2015) obsolete and protracted problems. According to Kant, such supreme moral laws based on reason point to profound structural and systemic transformation to tackle the present climate crisis as a case regardless of individual development in such virtues as courage or sacrifice. You and I, being ordinary citizens, might not be perfectly virtuous according to Kant; however, there is still a duty on us to voice these concerns and support the leaders that will promulgate laws based on scientific evidence on what measures should be taken fast to cut off carbon dioxide.
Supporting Point 3
Moreover, Kantian ethics requires urgent climate justice actions that fossil fuel companies and other carbon-intensive industries often avoid by appealing to ethical egoism and shareholder obligations (Ekwurzel et al., 2017). According to Kant, no corporation or enterprise can justify obstructing climate action or interfering with emissions reduction policies by claiming they must maximize profits.
As an ordinary citizen, it boggles my mind that fossil fuel interests spend millions lobbying and spreading misinformation when lives are at stake from climate breakdown. Don’t they have children and grandchildren too? Last month, my home state witnessed devastating floods that destroyed schools and hospitals. Families are still displaced. How can any executive go home at night and sleep soundly after blocking policies to transition economies from oil and gas? As persons with moral agency, corporate leaders must respect the fundamental rights of all people impacted. I am no philosopher, but my aunt, who survived Stage 4 cancer, used to say there comes a point where we must follow our conscience rather than social rules. Our house is burning from Alaska to Australia, and defeating this crisis requires everyone’s cooperation. Executives should have blown the whistle long ago. However, telling the truth and changing course is never too late. If boards aligned around the greatest ethical good, they would rapidly overhaul business models to decarbonize in line with 1.5°C pathways. Working people whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels also deserve corporate leaders’ support through a just transition. We face a make-or-break moment of conscience.
Justification
In short, shareholder primacy cannot supersede moral obligations. The Categorical Imperative necessitates that all industries rapidly decarbonize their operations and supply chains and support the economy-wide transition to renewable energy. No appeal to shareholder value, narrow self-interest, or claims around sacrifice to the bottom line could ever supersede the supreme principle to prevent violation of human rights. With communities devastated by floods and wildfires, society has an urgent Kantian duty to act.
Supporting Point 4
Finally, Kantian duty ethics establish why states and corporations in developed nations have an ethical obligation to provide climate finance and technological aid to vulnerable developing countries that lack comparable resources or historical blame for the climate crisis (Jafry et al., 2019). Per Kant, every morally relevant agent has a duty to right wrongs they play a role in causing – so nations like the United States must provide mechanisms for loss and damage from disasters, along with investments to decarbonize rapidly in Global South countries.
Justification
In short, Kantian ethics intervenes to help vulnerable communities, an absolute moral imperative, not simply charity or utility calculation. Those with power and influence are most blameworthy if they do not enact policies that curb emissions growth and help communities adapt. Historical beneficiaries of fossil fuels have unconditioned duties to empower marginalized groups and nations to develop cleanly and build resilience to a destabilized climate system.
The Supreme Principle of Morality necessitates timely and adequate financing for developing countries to achieve energy transitions and community resilience, which current UN mechanisms still need to deliver under principles of historical responsibility. Kant gives no room for excuses around domestic priorities or fiscal constraints when human rights are violated – moral obligations override.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Kant’s duty ethics establishes the most vital moral obligation for climate action if we hope to respect the rights of all people and future generations to a stable climate system. At a minimum, developed nations must immediately enact aggressive policies that curb emissions in line with 1.5°C pathways. We bear historic responsibility for this crisis while developing countries face harsh impacts without comparable blame. Gilligan’s care perspective highlights that natural climate justice requires embracing our shared humanity and interdependence. When I think of climate refugees fleeing disasters, I feel in my soul that hyper-individualism driving ecological decline must end. Our fates are intertwined. Regenerative agriculture and solidarity economies give me hope. Loving our global neighbours as ourselves is the only viable path forward. However, Kant’s supreme duties remain the moral floor all societies have failed to meet. No entity can justify gross ecological destruction and violating fundamental rights through appeals to economic rationalization or shareholder obligations. Not when children’s lives are at stake. The ethical imperative for sweeping systemic action to reduce emissions could not be more urgent. We must legislate in line with science immediately while transforming cultures of hyper-individualism by embracing our vulnerability. This is the only chance left to secure a livable world. I wish leaders globally dared to hear the weeping of creation groaning under climate disruption and the wisdom to choose love in this critical hour. We require a collective shift to nonviolence, where people feel intrinsically motivated to transition away from fossil fuels out of care, compassion and responsibility. This is the only viable path forward to climate justice.
References
Ripple, W.J., Wolf C., Newsome T.M. et al. (2022). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency 2022. Bioscience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac083
EPA, (2021). Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Robinson, S. & Shine, T. (2018). Achieving a climate justice pathway to 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change, 8(7), 564-569. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Achieving-a-climate-justice-pathway-to-1.5-%C2%B0C-Robinson-Shine/c8216ac7b5e9784fd4e772e05642cce069ca97d5
Ekwurzel, B., Boneham, J., Dalton, M.W., Heede, R., Mera, R.J., Allen, M.R. & Frumhoff, P.C. (2017). The global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level rise from emissions traced to major carbon producers. Climatic Change, 144, 579–590. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-1978-0
Jafry, T., Mikulewicz, M., & Helwig, K. (2019). Justice is the goal: Diving colonialism to address climate change. The Solutions Journal, 10(1), 63-73. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315537689-1/introduction-tahseen-jafry-michael-mikulewicz-karin-helwig
write