Objectives of Sustainable Development

Through the lecture on sustainable, we established that sustainable development is a morally thick notion. In order to achieve sustainability one must be able to manage the ultimate objectives of sustainable development – human welfare, life support systems and social equity. However, in past, partly due to our limited ability to think in ‘systems’, managing all three has been difficult, but we have improved our ability to manage human welfare and life support, leaving social equity being the challenge. The component of justice and equity is the most difficult portion of the sustainability puzzle, which is why we learn about moral philosophy and ethics in the context of global change. It is important to understand and stay aware of the notions of justness, fairness and rights alive both in this course and throughout life.

The Difference Between Science and Humanities
With the natural and social world inextricably linked, it would make sense that the natural and social sciences work together. However, science has separated from humanities with this schism obvious in academics and the real-world today. This sort of dualism is easily seen in Universities today as it separates domains across its campus. So, what are the differences between science and humanities that may have fueled this division?

Science is objective and thus value-free. It searches for truth through employing the scientific method. Ken Wilbur, an American philosopher, states that science has only one validity claim or one notion of where you find wisdom and it is in the land of IT. However, there are really multiple sources of wisdom and validity, which the field of Humanities discovers. Humanities focuses less on what is (science = positive statement), and more on what should be (humanities = normative), is highly value-laden.

In the 2x2 matrix to the left, Ken Wilber plots the subjective world (left) and the objective world (right) on the horizontal axis, and the individual world (top) and the collective world (bottom) on the vertical axis. He argues that if you really want to understand the world and manage appropriately within it, you need to take different perspectives on any given issue or situation, which parallels a system thinking view. However, science (exterior-individual behavior) tends to ignore the left hand side of wisdom or deal with human part.

Moral Philosophy = Ethics
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.

To understand moral philosophy, it is important to build an understanding for four key definitions that were reviewed in class. These definitions form the basis of moral philosophy allow us to better understand different ethical theories.

VALUES: “One’s principles or standards; one’s judgment of what is valuable or important in life; relatively permanent and deeply held desires; that which is desirable or worthy of esteem for its own sake.”

ETHICS: “The principles of morality, including both the science of the good and the nature of the right; the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment; moral philosophy; disciplined reflection on moral ideals and ideas.”

FORM: tangible or intangible, consciously or unconsciously held, objective or subjective, instrumental or terminal, rational or emotional, explicit or implicit, etc.

ROLES: Serve as decision criteria, shape perceptions and interpretations, frame attitudes and behaviors, unify personality, confer legitimacy, guide and motivate behavior, define the sanctions applied to actions, etc.
When understanding these definitions, an important distinction must be made between values and ethics. Ethics is about asking the right question at the right time about the right things to do. Values are what drives what we believe is right.

In the modern era, ethical theories were generally divided between the consequentialist theories of utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and deontological (formalist) ethics as epitomized by the work of Immanuel Kant. Both ethics have their strengths and weaknesses.

Utilitarian philosophy argues that the right act or policy is that which provides the greatest happiness to the greatest number. A person who employs this ethic will think of the consequences of their actions and will base their decision / action based on the one that minimizes consequences, making a judgement about what will bring about the greatest overall benefit. However, in relation to sustainability, the big danger with utilitarianism is that someone (typically minorites) lose out, while the majority wins out.

Kant, the father of formalist thinking, rejected the utilitarian notion for “the categorical moral imperative”, where an individual should act in a way that would be consistent with a universal law. A person who operates under this ethic believes every individual should know their duty in a particular situation and roots their actions based on an absolute judgement of what is right or wrong. However, since formalism is dervied from obligations, over motives, its weakness emerges out of its inflexibility.

Climate Change – A Perfect Moral Storm

Climate change is a profoundly moral story, where there are massive consequences for all – people and planet. But, as in previous lectures about sustainable development and systems thinking, the interconnected nature of the world and our climate, forces us to ask the moral question: What do we owe others, such as future generations, who currently don’t have a voice at the decision-making table? Are we to weigh the costs and benefits to make our decisions, or based on our obligations.

As we try to answer this question, one of the many factors that we should consider is the temporal dynamics of climate change. Looking at CO2 levels, if they peak in next few decades, we will still have consequences for people living in low level coastal zones in the future. There is a long delay for stabilizing of greenhouse gases, and as such, CO2 and its effects still stay relevant. For example, it takes much longer for ice to melt and for eventual sea level swelling / rise.

Climate change is also an equity issue when we examine who are the greatest contributors to climate change, versus who will be most affected by it. There is a difference. Historically, 80% of all CO2 has come from rich countries (which makes up less than 1/3 the earth’s population). However, those most vulnerable populations to the effects of climate change are the remaining 2/3 of the world, and are those that have the least adaptive capacity to manage through the changes associated with climate change.

So, can we achieve sustainable development via enlightened self-interest or a utilitarian ethic alone?
John Rawls spoke about the principles of justice in a world of deep interdependence. He proclaimed that you only get true justice or fairness if you put a veil over wealth generation. Then and only then will we make judgments that are unbiased and based on our obligations to those in which we are interconnected (e.g., the poor, the next generation, vulnerable ecosystems and animals).
Our challenge as we try to achieve sustainable development, will be, what moral ethic we apply. The tendency towards a utilitarian view, particularly in regards to our class, may not be suitable. Going-forward, to better address the uncertain, non-linear future, we must take steps to

• Define morally right versus wrong;
• Assign duties and obligations;
• Commit to personal sacrifice; and,
• Profoundly change our values to exalt the common good over private interest.

Take the Ethics of Global Change Self Test