Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If all current and future persons are entitled to equal p... — Carmelics
    Home/Environmental Ethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If all current and future persons are entitled to equal per capita greenhouse gas emissions, each person's share would be close to zero.

    Environmental EthicsRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The atmosphere's remaining carbon budget is physically finite, bounded by the 1.5-2°C thresholds established in IPCC assessments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawlsian intergenerational justice requires that no generation depletes shared natural capital in ways that worsen the position of the least advantaged future persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When a finite budget is divided equally across billions of current and future persons under these constraints, arithmetic necessarily yields a near-zero individual share.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Henry Shue's foundational distinction between subsistence and luxury emissions entails that only survival-level emissions can be morally justified under conditions of genuine scarcity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under genuine atmospheric scarcity, equal per capita shares converging toward zero is not a reductio but a precise quantification of how severely past overconsumption has foreclosed future entitlements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Equal per capita entitlement divides total permissible emissions by the number of entitled persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The number of current and future persons included in the calculation is very large.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dividing a finite emissions budget among a very large number of persons yields a share approaching zero.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Environmental EthicsRights & Liberty

    Related

    Dividing a finite emissions budget among a very large number of persons yields a...Equal per capita entitlement divides total permissible emissions by the number o...Henry Shue's foundational distinction between subsistence and luxury emissions e...Rawlsian intergenerational justice requires that no generation depletes shared n...
    +4 moreShow less
    The atmosphere's remaining carbon budget is physically finite, bounded by the 1....The number of current and future persons included in the calculation is very lar...Under genuine atmospheric scarcity, equal per capita shares converging toward ze...When a finite budget is divided equally across billions of current and future pe...

    Similar

    Equal per capita entitlement divides total permissible emissions by th...81%Dividing a finite emissions budget among a very large number of person...77%Individuals do not have a duty to limit their own personal greenhouse ...75%If two people enjoy an equally fair standard of living but one uses fo...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justice-climate
    View source passageHide passage
    A second option is to think that future people have rights and hence that, on the view under consideration, they too have an equal right to emit greenhouse gases. If, however, one thinks that all current and future persons are entitled to equal per capita emissions then we face two severe problems. (i) It will be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to calculate how much everyone is entitled to. Furthermore, (ii), given the number of future and present people included the equal per capita
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit