Hourdequin Summary
1. Thesis
“By contrast, Hourdequin argues that the virtue of integrity requires us to bring our political and individual lives into alignment. On her view, if you think that carbon emissions ought to be limited, then you ought to limit your own carbon emissions, even if this means sacrificing some things that you’d otherwise enjoy.” (458, Hourdequin)
2. Support for Thesis
“…I want to consider whether there might be any reason to reduce one’s personal emissions even if [Sinnott-Armstrong is] right that doing so has no direct consequentialist payoff, that is, even if they are right that a reduction in emissions on one person’s part will result in nonexistent or negligible net change in greenhouse gas emissions overall.” (460, Hourdequin) Integrity is important when it comes to watching the effects of global warming. In order to understand an individual’s obligation to the environment there are two things of integrity; integration and integrality. There is no set …show more content…
The author makes it seem that if a person feels a certain way about the global warming than they have to agree with whatever else relates to that opinion on global warming. People are allowed to believe one thing and not have to have a personal obligation to go with it. I feel people don’t have to have an obligation to do anything because even if they believe in what they are discussing. If life was like this then everything would be a lot crazier then how it is. This is why I disagree with the author saying that if you believe in a certain thing pertaining to what we are discussing they don’t have an obligation to that person or the topic at
“By contrast, Hourdequin argues that the virtue of integrity requires us to bring our political and individual lives into alignment. On her view, if you think that carbon emissions ought to be limited, then you ought to limit your own carbon emissions, even if this means sacrificing some things that you’d otherwise enjoy.” (458, Hourdequin)
2. Support for Thesis
“…I want to consider whether there might be any reason to reduce one’s personal emissions even if [Sinnott-Armstrong is] right that doing so has no direct consequentialist payoff, that is, even if they are right that a reduction in emissions on one person’s part will result in nonexistent or negligible net change in greenhouse gas emissions overall.” (460, Hourdequin) Integrity is important when it comes to watching the effects of global warming. In order to understand an individual’s obligation to the environment there are two things of integrity; integration and integrality. There is no set …show more content…
The author makes it seem that if a person feels a certain way about the global warming than they have to agree with whatever else relates to that opinion on global warming. People are allowed to believe one thing and not have to have a personal obligation to go with it. I feel people don’t have to have an obligation to do anything because even if they believe in what they are discussing. If life was like this then everything would be a lot crazier then how it is. This is why I disagree with the author saying that if you believe in a certain thing pertaining to what we are discussing they don’t have an obligation to that person or the topic at