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?
A) Most people in the world do not have access to gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles. Therefore, most people in the world do not face the choice about whether to take a Sunday drive in one, making Sinnott-Armstrong's argument irrelevant.
B) Global warming is inevitable at this point. Therefore, individual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not prevent any harm. Thus, it doesn't matter whether individuals reduce their emissions.
C) The average American's greenhouse gas emissions over the course of their entire life cause enough climate change to harm people, even if the emissions from an individual action do not. Therefore, individuals do have an obligation to reduce their overall greenhouse gas emissions.
D) Governments should not have the power to tell people what to do with their property. Individuals' cars are their own property. Therefore, governments should not be allowed to prohibit them from going for a Sunday drive in their own car.

Question

Quizplus · 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.

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