Homo Economicus Also Informs Writ 150 University

Homo Economicus Also Informs Writ 150 University

Writing Task:

Choose a sustainability issue for which we can see how it results from a collective impact of individual actions. Once you have settled on an issue that interests you, respond to the following prompt in a 5-7 page, thesis-driven essay. To what degree should individuals bear moral responsibility for this collective problem?

Research Requirements:

In terms of theoretical background, the assigned readings are sufficient to fuel your paper with concepts and dueling perspectives. However, you are at liberty to consult other sources if you want to expand your conceptual arsenal.

In relation to your sustainability issue, you will of course need to gather technical knowledge from research sources.

Readings:

1) Michael Sandel, Justice, Episode 1, “The Moral Side of Murder” (video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

2) Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations”

https://sites.duke.edu/wsa/papers/files/2011/05/wsa-itsnotmyfault2005.pdf

3) Marion Hourdequin, “Climate, Collective Action and Individual Ethical Obligations”

https://ideas.repec.org/a/env/journl/ev19ev1920.html


Background

Sinnott-Armstrong and Hourdequin hold divergent views about individual moral obligations in the face of collective problems, such as climate change. The way in which each philosopher conceives of the individual, especially in relationship to the material and moral impacts of one’s actions, leads them to reach opposing conclusions about the question, “How do individual actions matter in a collective context?” This question is particularly relevant in regard to a number of sustainability issues which our daily actions contribute to. While we all look to our governments to save us from our global messes, we are all still contributors. What, if any, ethical responsibility do we have in relation to these problems?

Sinnott-Armstrong takes a utilitarian approach in assessing how an individual’s carbon emissions impacts the overall problem of global warming. He employs the 19th century homo economicus model that sees individuals as self-motivated actors who want to maximize their utility in the commons. Sinnott-Armstrong concludes that the individual’s action has no significant impact on climate change and hence renders no moral obligation. The homo economicus also informs Garret Hardin’s view of consumers in “Tragedy of the Commons,” which puts little faith in conscience and favors the coercion of legislation and taxation to curtail destructive consumption patterns of the commons.

By contrast, Hourdequin examines the same issue through the lens of personhood grounded in relational contexts. She draws from the ancient Chinese thought of Confucius, who conceived of the individual as constituted by his or her relationships—to family, community, profession, and the state. In this model, every action of the individual ripples outward with moral implications, each action influences one’s relationships in either harmful or beneficial ways. Hence, an individual’s choice of vehicle, for instance, can be a powerful form of persuasion in a communal context. Hourdequain also argues that basic integrity requires that we back up our personal values with political action.


Purpose

In this unit, we will continue to develop the skilled use of Invention aids (heuristics). Additionally, we will now intensify our focus on crafting forceful arguments that are rooted in competing concepts and perspectives. We will analyze outside sources to note how their arguments are situated within established debates and ongoing academic conversations. And we will also practice writing like scholars, pushing beyond familiar structures, such as the 5-paragraph essay. Instead, we will grow our essays according to the unique intellectual demands of the issue, rather than the easy dictates of a formula