Climate change without getting rid of coal

Apply the moral reasoning you learned about in chapters 1 and 2
of the textbook, as you analyze issues from this week’s reading on climate change, “Major Climate Report
Describes a Strong Risk.”
The Case:
Tania lives in a city where all of the electricity is provided by a coal-fired power plant. Given the recent findings
of the IPCC report, especially the conclusion that “there is no way to mitigate climate change without getting rid
of coal,” Tania is wondering whether it is morally permissible for her to run her air conditioner this summer,
using electricity that is provided by burning coal.
Write a short essay (approximately 200 words) in which you evaluate whether or not it is morally
permissible for Tania to use her air conditioner this summer, given that her electricity is provided by a polluting
source that the IPCC report says must be eliminated. Give a moral argument to support your evaluation, being
sure to use at least one normative premise.
***For detailed instructions on case study assignments, see this note about case studies.
Your short essay should include these components:
A short summary of the issue you will discuss.
A moral argument that contains several premises and a moral conclusion. Please write the premises and
conclusion in a numbered list, following the format modeled in Chapters 1 and 2 of the textbook.
A concluding discussion.
After you post your essay, respond to at least 2 of your classmates’ posts in approximately 100 words per
response (Note – you will be able to see your classmates’ posts only after you have posted your own).
Chapter 1
Elle Woods’s climactic courtroom argument in Legally Blonde illustrates the art of reasoning, which is the art of
showing that one claim is implied by some other claim(s). An argument is a piece of reasoning, in which some
claims function as premises and one functions as the conclusion. (Arguments differ from explanations in that
arguments help us to see that something is true, whereas explanations help us understand why something is
true.)
The process of understanding an argument, known as argument analysis, requires us to identify the various
parts of the argument and figure out how they relate to one another. Some arguments have premises that
provide independent reasons for the conclusion, whereas in other arguments two or more premises work
together to support the conclusion. Still other arguments proceed in multiple steps, so that one claim follows
from an earlier premise and is itself a premise for a later conclusion; such intermediate conclusions are called
subconclusions.
The process of argument evaluation involves figuring out how strong an argument is, which requires assessing
the acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency of the premises. Roughly, a premise is acceptable if the audience
has a good enough reason to believe it; this reason can come from a number of different sources, such as
sensory experience, a priori understanding of the claim, or argument. Roughly, a premise is (positively)
relevant if its truth counts in favor of the truth of the conclusion. Roughly, an argument’s premises are jointly
sufficient if, taken together, they provide enough reason for the audience to accept the conclusion. An
argument that meets all three of these criteria is said to be cogent. (Arguments that fail on one or more of these
criteria might commit a fallacy.) Some arguments are also sound arguments, meaning that it has true premises
and is deductively valid (i.e., it is impossible for the conclusion to be true while the premises are false).
Chapter 2
A moral argument is any argument whose conclusion is a moral claim, where a moral claim is, roughly, any
claim about what is morally right, wrong, good, or bad. Moral claims can be divided into deontic claims (i.e.,
claims about what is morally wrong, morally obligatory, merely morally permissible, or supererogatory) and
moral axiological claims (i.e., claims about what is morally good or bad). These, in turn, are a type of normative
claim, which is, roughly, a claim about how the world should be or about what is good or bad; and which
contrasts with descriptive claims, which are, roughly, claims about how the world is, was, will be, or would be in
5/28/2020 Order 319840643
https://admin.writerbay.com/orders_available?subcom=detailed&id=319840643 3/3
certain circumstances.
One of the most important features of moral arguments is that they must all have at least one moral premise.
This rule that one “cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’” is known as Hume’s Law. When a moral argument
appears to lack a moral premise, it always has an implicit or hidden premise. Identifying hidden premises is a
skill that requires balancing the need to choose a plausible premise with the need to choose a premise that
connects the premises to the conclusion.
Moral arguments make some people uncomfortable because they don’t like being judgmental, but it is possible
to conclude (e.g.) that someone’s action was wrong without thinking that you should try to punish or scold him
or her for it.