Confucian Environmental Ethics, Climate Engineering, and the “Playing God” Argument

Wong, Pak‐Hang

doi:10.1111/zygo.12151

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…39 See, e.g. Wong (2015Wong ( , 2016 on how current debates on the ethics of geo-engineering omit concerns that are important from a non-Western perspective. 40 See e.g.…”

Section: Are There Universal Norms?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Zellentin

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners occasionally demure that the current academic literature on climate justice is overly abstract and unhelpful in their attempt to promote more effective and equitable climate policies. This paper analyses the claim that one reason for this might be that the debate is currently shaped by a particular narrow understanding of justice as impartiality and neglects other important approaches to justice. I first introduce my interpretation of Erik O. Eriksen's three conceptions of global political justice focusing on impartiality, non-domination, and mutual recognition. Then, I present the key concerns and positions that shape the debates on climate justice in the field of political theory and show why (and in how far) I think current climate justice is predominantly shaped by 'justice as impartiality'. I argue that this explains the emphasis on substantive justice over procedural questions. Furthermore, I show that looking at key questions in climate justice from the perspectives of theories emphasising non-domination and mutual recognition helps to identify some blind-spots in the current debate. Among the issues that are currently somewhat neglected are questions relating to the nature of the relationships of the relevant parties negotiating climate policy. This concerns on the one hand power inequalities and dependencies that shape the interactions between different parties. On the other hand, this relates to the question of how agents perceive these relationships with regard to dimensions of recognition, respect, and concern. It seems likely that less powerful agents have good reasons to feel that the global political regime as it currently works does not treat their interests and demands with the same urgency and importance as is shown for those of some more powerful players. Furthermore, their concerns regarding the normatively significant features of the situation at large are not always respected as equally valid contributions to the debate. I conclude by arguing that climate justice nonetheless cannot do without a rights-based framework typical for justice as impartiality that protects fundamental interests and the pre-conditions for free and equal participation.

show abstract

“…39 See, e.g. Wong (2015Wong ( , 2016 on how current debates on the ethics of geo-engineering omit concerns that are important from a non-Western perspective. 40 See e.g.…”

Section: Are There Universal Norms?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Zellentin

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body of the United Nations with a mandate to study climate change, defines climate engineering as “deliberately altering the climate system to counter climate change” (IPCC 2013, 27, cited by Wong ). In October 2018, IPCC released its special report about the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C.…”

Section: Climate Engineering and Hindu Legends And Mythsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Engineering From Hindu‐jain Perspectives

Jain¹

2019

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Indic perspectives toward nature are now well documented, climate engineering discussions seem to still lack the views from Indic or other non‐Western sources. In this article, I will apply some of the Hindu and Jain concepts such as karma, nonviolence (Ahiṃsā), humility (Vinaya), and renunciation (Saṃnyāsa) to analyze the two primary climate geoengineering strategies of solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). I suggest that Indic philosophical and religious traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism offer ethical concepts to call for humility in all acts of climate engineering leading to a favoring of CDR over SRM and a favoring of lifestyle changes (particularly vegetarianism) over both. I demonstrate these concepts by introducing the five great elements from the Hindu philosophy, two Hindu legends from Hindu mythology, the Indic ethical ideas of karma, renunciation, and humility, and the moral authority of Gandhi.

show abstract

“…Might a Confucian perspective help us all in envisaging and realizing a different practice in social media? This topic is a welcome addition to earlier articles on Confucianism, China, and science and technology, alongside articles in the first issue of 2016 focusing on “East Asian Voices on Science and the Humanities” (Chen , Hsu ) and a contribution on Confucian environmental ethics last year (Wong ).…”

Section: And Everywhere: Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Far Away and at Home: Multiple Interactions of Religion and Science

Drees¹

2016

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confucian Environmental Ethics, Climate Engineering, and the “Playing God” Argument

Cited by 19 publications

References 26 publications

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Climate Engineering From Hindu‐jain Perspectives

Far Away and at Home: Multiple Interactions of Religion and Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About