In a context of insufficient climate action on the part of governments, the question of whether individuals have any underlying moral responsibility concerning climate change has become...Show moreIn a context of insufficient climate action on the part of governments, the question of whether individuals have any underlying moral responsibility concerning climate change has become increasingly relevant. However, despite various theoretical attempts to ground such responsibility, none of them has been completely satisfactory, resulting in a lack of consensus in the scholarly literature. In this thesis, I engage with this debate, guided by the following research question: what is the nature of individual responsibility for climate change? I build on Iris Marion Young’s Social Connection Model (SCM) of responsibility to respond to this question. I argue that using Young’s SCM to conceptualize individual responsibility to face climate injustice is appropriate because it captures the structural nature of the problem. The shared and forward-looking responsibility it entails and its focus on collective political action provide a framework to respond to climate injustice meaningfully. However, while Young sees the nature of such responsibility as being strictly political, I engage critically with the author and argue that, instead, the responsibility we bear to face climate injustice is moral. Despite concerns about moral responsibility and the blameworthiness it entails, I explore how blame can be a mechanism of accountability and social enforceability, fundamental for ensuring effective collective climate action.Show less
This thesis shall examine two conceptions of justice, proposed by Rawls and Young respectively, and the society that flows from said conceptions, in order to evaluate them and conclude that they...Show moreThis thesis shall examine two conceptions of justice, proposed by Rawls and Young respectively, and the society that flows from said conceptions, in order to evaluate them and conclude that they are not able to resolve and prevent injustices. These philosophers are the focus of this thesis as they both attempt to measure and resolve injustice, with Rawls focused on equality and distributive issues whilst Young takes an approach based on resolving oppression by respecting group differences. Existing debates in political philosophy can largely be separated into two categories. Arguably the biggest debates are to be found in the category in which Young’s and Rawls’s work can also be found, revolving around the question of what the best possible society would look like. These discussions, however, assume that there is a satisfying answer to debates that fall in the other category, which includes all discussions surrounding the question of whether states are or can be good at all. By evaluating the societies proposed by Rawls and Young this thesis is situated in the first category of discussion, though avoids the assumption that a state is good or justifiable. Instead, this thesis will attempt to bridge the gap between the discussions by noting the injustices caused by these proposed systems of government, opening the door for the inclusion of anarchist philosophy in discussions about the best possible way to order a society.Show less
