Abstract: In order to advance a neatly deductive argument, Christopher J. Preston must make a number of assumptions and framing decisions that exclude important practical points from the scope of his analysis. We do not criticize him for doing so, as these simplifications allow him to advance a concise argument about an ethically complex subject. However, as scholars of politics and law, we are interested in what this ethical argument means—and does not mean—for the messy politics of climate engineering. Accordingly, in our response we unpack the political implications of some of Preston’s assumptions and framing decisions in an effort to add a layer of practical richness to the abstraction of Preston’s analysis.
Keywords: climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, doctrine of double effect, unintended harms, closeness thesis
Full response available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Review
Reconstructing Human Rights: A Pragmatist and Pluralist Inquiry into Global Ethics by Joe Hoover
In Reconstructing Human Rights, Joe Hoover locates the value of human rights in the work that they do in the world. He seeks to develop ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Feature
Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms
In this article, Christopher J. Preston compares the culpability for any unintended harms resulting from stratospheric aerosol injection versus culpability for the unintended harms already ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Essay
Looking Inward Together: Just War Thinking and Our Shared Moral Emotions
In this essay Valerie Morkevicius argues that just war thinking serves a social and psychological role that international law cannot fill. Law is dispassionate and ...