Refine
Document Type
- Article (8)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10)
Keywords
- Benefits (1)
- Collective Action (1)
- Collective Action Problems (1)
- Dangerous Climate Change (1)
- Hope (1)
- Pledge and Review (1)
- Reason (1)
- Requirements (1)
- The Right to Sustainable Development (1)
- climate change (1)
Hope and reasons
(2020)
This paper argues that hope can be understood as an attitude or an attitudinal complex that is partially sensitive to reasons. One way that an attitude is sensitive to reasons is that it is permitted given the reasons available. A second way in which an attitude is sensitive to reasons is that it might be required in light of available reasons. This paper argues that hope may be permitted by the available reasons, and although it is sometimes good or praiseworthy to hope, hope is never categorically required. In that sense, hope is partially sensitive to reasons.
Mit den politischen Philosophen Darrel Moellendorf, der neu aus San Diego an die Goethe-Universität berufen worden ist, und Rainer Forst, Co-Sprecher des Frankfurter Exzellenzclusters "Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen" und in diesem Wintersemester Gastprofessor an der New York University, sprachen Bernd Frye, Pressereferent des Clusters, und Ulrike Jaspers, Redakteurin von Forschung Frankfurt.
This article corrects the following: Hope in political philosophy,
Claudia Blöser Jakob Huber Darrel Moellendorf. Volume 15Issue 5Philosophy Compass First Published online: April 17, 2020.
It has come to the author's attention that the reference citation of ‘Meirav, 2009’ on page 2 of his published article entitled, ‘Hope in political philosophy’ does not provide bibliographical details regarding the article and does not include it in its list of works cited.
Here is the bibliographical information: Meirav, A. (2009). The nature of hope. Ratio, 22, 216–233.
Responsibility for increasing mitigation ambition in light of the right to sustainable development
(2020)
The international community is currently in the midst of a facilitative dialogue about how to increase mitigation ambition under the terms of Paris Agreement. This dialogue concerns centrally considerations of equity, which includes matters of both justice and responsibility. I defend the importance of the right to sustainable development in this regard. I argue that if the right of states to pursue poverty eradicating human development is to be respected, then there is plausible interpretation of responsibility for mitigation in which a state’s ability to pay is the central consideration, where that ability is measured by its human development level. That conception of responsibility should be applied to considerations of how increase mitigation ambition.
Hope in political philosophy
(2020)
The language of hope is a ubiquitous part of political life, but its value is increasingly contested. While there is an emerging debate about hope in political philosophy, an assessment of the prevalent scepticism about its role in political practice is still outstanding. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of historical and recent treatments of hope in political philosophy and to indicate lines of further research. We argue that even though political philosophy can draw on recent analyses of hope in analytic philosophy, there are distinct challenges for an account of hope in political contexts. Examples such as racial injustice or climate change show the need for a systematic normative account that is sensitive to the unavoidability of hope in politics as much as its characteristic dangers.
With the significant disconnect between the collective aim of limiting warming to well below 2°C and the current means proposed to achieve such an aim, the goal of this paper is to offer a moral assessment of prominent alternatives to current international climate policy. To do so, we’ll outline five different policy routes that could potentially bring the means and goal in line. Those five policy routes are: (1) exceed 2°C; (2) limit warming to less than 2°C by economic de-growth; (3) limit warming to less than 2°C by traditional mitigation only; (4) limit warming to less than 2°C by traditional mitigation and widespread deployment of Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs); and (5) limit warming to less than 2°C by traditional mitigation, NETs, and Solar Radiation Management as a fallback. In assessing these five policy routes, we rely primarily upon two moral considerations: the avoidance of catastrophic climate change and the right to sustainable development. We’ll conclude that we should continue to aim at the two-degree target, and that to get there we should use aggressive mitigation, pursue the deployment of NETs, and continue to research SRM.
This article discusses obstacles to overcoming dangerous climate change. It employs an account of dangerous climate change that takes climate change and climate change policy as dangerous if it imposes avoidable costs of poverty prolongation. It then examines plausible accounts of the collective action problems that seem to explain the lack of ambition to mitigate. After criticizing the merits of two proposals to overcome these problems, it discusses the pledge and review process. It argues that pledge and review possesses the virtues of encouraging broad participation and of providing a procedural safeguard for the right of sustainable development. However, given the perceptions of the marginal short term costs of mitigation, pledge and review is unlikely, at least initially, to issue in an agreement to make deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Because there is no rival approach that seems likely to better instantiate the two virtues, pledge and review may be the best available policy for mitigation. Moreover, recent economic research suggests that the co-benefits of mitigation may be greater than previously assumed and that the costs of renewable energy may be less than previously calculated. This would radically undermine claims that the short term mitigation costs necessarily render mitigation irrational and produce collective action problems. Given the circumstances, pledge and review might be our best hope to avoid dangerous climate change.
Auf der Bad Homburg Conference 2021 wurden ausgewählte Fragen der Klimapolitik aus verschiedenen Perspektiven von internationalen Expertinnen und Experten aus Wissenschaft und Zivilgesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Politik diskutiert. Der UniReport hat einige Stimmen zur Konferenz eingeholt, die jeweils wichtige Erkenntnisse, aber auch Streitpunkte und offene Fragen benennen.
