Which of the following would count as an objection to Sinnott-Armstrong's main argument?
A) Although the greenhouse gas emissions from an individual action, such as a Sunday drive, do an imperceptible amount of harm, they still do some harm to an enormous number of people. Therefore, individuals have an obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because their emissions harm other people.
B) Global warming is just a result of natural variation in the Earth's climate and is not caused by human activity. So, greenhouse gas emissions do not actually harm anyone. Therefore, no individual has an obligation to reduce his or her emissions.
C) Consequences are the only things that matter morally. Many of the principles that Sinnott-Armstrong considers are not mainly about consequences. Therefore, most of those principles are irrelevant to the morality of greenhouse gas emissions.
D) Sinnott-Armstrong says that governments, not individuals, have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it is possible for both governments and individuals to be obligated to do the same thing. Therefore, Sinnott-Armstrong's argument fails.

Question

Quizplus · 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.

Which of the Following Would Count as an Objection to Sinnott-Armstrong's