Question 1

Why does Sinnott-Armstrong reject the principle that it is wrong to perform an action if it would make things worse if everyone were to perform that action?

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that the principle would prohibit actions that are clearly permissible, such as choosing not to have children, which is why he rejects it.

Question 2

Which of the following does Sinnott-Armstrong think is a counterexample to the "public permission principle?"

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following does Sinnott-Armstrong think...

Question 3

Which of the following best captures Sinnott-Armstrong's argument that the "contractualist principle" does not show that individuals are obligated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that the contractualist principle relies heavily on moral intuitions, which can vary greatly among individuals, making it difficult to establish a universal obligation to reduce emissions.

Question 4

What can we infer, according to Sinnott-Armstrong, from the fact that none of the principles he considers shows us that individuals have a moral obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What can we infer, according to Sinnott-Armstrong,...

Question 5

Which of the following best captures the notion of "wasteful driving" that Sinnott-Armstrong discusses?

Accepted Answer

Driving that is not necessary for some important purpose, such as getting to work.

Question 6

Which of the following could we infer from Sinnott-Armstrong's argument that the greenhouse gas emissions from a single joyride will not cause anyone any harm?

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong's argument suggests that while individual actions (like a single joyride) may not cause discernible harm on their own, the cumulative effect of many such actions can lead to significant harm, such as contributing to global warming. This implies that a large number of seemingly harmless actions can collectively cause great harm.

Question 7

Assume that Sinnott-Armstrong is correct that individuals have no obligation to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Which of these claims would follow from that assumption?

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong's argument, if correct, suggests that individual actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not morally obligatory, which implies that it could be permissible for individuals to engage in activities that, when scaled up by a large group, could cause harm. This does not necessarily mean that governments have no obligation (A), that there is nothing morally admirable about individual actions (B), or that individuals have no reasons at all to reduce emissions (C), but rather that the moral obligation might not be as direct or individual-based as some argue.

Question 8

Which of the following would count as an objection to Sinnott-Armstrong's main argument?

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that individual actions like a Sunday drive do not significantly contribute to harm, thus individuals do not have a moral obligation to reduce emissions. Choice A challenges this by asserting that even small contributions can collectively cause harm, implying individuals do have an obligation.

Question 9

Which of the following would count as an objection to Sinnott-Armstrong's argument that individuals have no obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

Accepted Answer

C is correct because it directly challenges Sinnott-Armstrong's argument by asserting that the cumulative effect of an individual's emissions over their lifetime is significant enough to cause harm, thereby suggesting individuals do have an obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Question 10

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that individuals have no obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because it is uncertain whether global warming is caused by humans.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong actually argues that individuals have no obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but his argument is based on the premise that individual actions make no significant difference to global outcomes, not on the uncertainty of human-caused global warming.

Question 11

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that individuals have no obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because no plausible moral principle entails that they have such an obligation.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that individual actions are too insignificant to impact climate change, and thus, no moral principle obligates individuals to reduce emissions.

Question 12

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that although individuals have no obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, governments do have an obligation to reduce their citizens' emissions.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong's argument is based on the premise that individual actions, like driving a gas-guzzling vehicle, do not directly harm anyone because the impact of one person's emissions is negligible on the global scale. However, he believes that governments have the responsibility to implement policies that collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as they are in a position to effect significant environmental change.

Question 13

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that governments have an obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because individuals have no obligation to do so.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong actually argues that individuals do not have a direct moral obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but this does not imply that governments are absolved from the responsibility of addressing climate change through policy measures and regulations.

Question 14

An important premise in Sinnott-Armstrong's argument about individual obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that an individual's emissions from a Sunday drive do not cause any harmful climate change.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that because an individual's emissions from activities like a Sunday drive are so minuscule in the context of global emissions, they do not individually cause harmful climate change, challenging the notion of personal moral obligations to reduce such emissions.

Question 15

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that only consequentialist theories entail an individual obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong actually argues against the idea that individuals have a moral obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions based on consequentialist theories, suggesting that individual actions make no significant difference in the grand scheme of global emissions.

Question 16

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, individuals ought to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because the maxims of our actions should be universalizable.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues against the idea that individuals have a moral obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions based on Kantian ethics, including the principle of universalizability. He suggests that individual actions, such as driving a gas-guzzling car, do not significantly contribute to global warming in a way that would make such actions morally wrong based on their universalizability.

Question 17

Sinnott-Armstrong argues that it sometimes permissible to perform a particular action even when it would be disastrous if everyone performed that same action.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong argues from a perspective that acknowledges the complexity of moral situations, suggesting that in some cases, an action might be morally permissible for an individual to perform, even if it would lead to negative outcomes if everyone did the same. This is often discussed in the context of ethical theories that consider the consequences of actions and the context in which they occur.

Question 18

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, an individual's greenhouse gas emissions cause no harm because they do not cause any additional droughts, floods, heat waves, or other dangerous events.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Sinnott-Armstrong, an individual's greenhouse gas...

Question 19

Many of Sinnott-Armstrong's arguments depend on the premise that global warming is not likely to cause significant harm.

Accepted Answer

Sinnott-Armstrong's arguments, particularly in his famous paper "It's Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations," focus on challenging the notion that individual actions, like driving a gas-guzzling car, have a significant moral responsibility for global warming. He does not argue that global warming is unlikely to cause significant harm; rather, his discussions often acknowledge the potential for significant harm but question the direct moral obligations of individuals in contributing to or mitigating that harm.

Question 20

In your own words, state Sinnott-Armstrong's main conclusion in "It's Not My Fault" and summarize his main argument for that conclusion.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In your own words, state Sinnott-Armstrong's main...

Quiz 13: Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice