Freedom and responsibility
and be replaced by a more successful company which can balance the interests of the consumers with their own profit motive. There is, however, an expectation of how much can be expected by someone. If someone lives in poverty, it would not be reasonable to expect them to purchase higher price organic goods, even if it would be more friendly for the environment. Through this, we see that the expectation of someone’s responsibility is informed by their situation; those who have the greater power to act, should. Action is necessary as, although previous generations are lambasted for their lack of action on environmental policies, it could be argued that it was not the responsibility of the average person to ensure the health of the climate, but rather that of politicians and officials. Politicians and officials were and are, however, unable to act on the crisis due to a few key reasons, such as: party politics dilutes any message, reducing its capability; political donations and lobbying from companies that have an interest in a lack of meaningful climate action prevent changes to climate policy; gerrymandering of districts that require candidates to change their politics to appeal and prevent any radicalism from rising to power. These prevent any meaningful change from occurring within the democratic system. Therefore, those who have responsibility to act no longer just have a responsibility to vote for Green candidates but to participate in mechanisms for climate action outside the normal processes like boycotts, riots, etc. The action/responsibility expected is proportional to their situation; if the situation stifles change, this raises the expectation of a responsibility of direct action as higher levels of involvement are required to effect change. If an action that would improve the status quo can be easily taken by the person or structure that has the choice, then it would be reasonable to expect that person to do so. Although the climate crisis must be addressed on a global level – the crisis will continue if only half the countries are still polluting – it becomes a collective responsibility to take action. ‘The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality’ ; it becomes a reasonable expectation that everybody attempts their best in times of crisis, as it is their responsibility. During the First World War, white feathers were given to men who didn’t serve in the army in the United Kingdom, as their cowardice was seen as their abdicating responsibility. Regardless of the justification for such expectation of responsibility, people believed in universal duty and so thrust responsibility upon those who they saw as having the solution. Further, if one attacks a problem – a British man calling for war against Germany; someone calling for action on the climate – but refuses to use one’s ability to help solve the problem, that would rightly be seen as an abdication of responsibility. This responsibility, however, must be weighed against other responsibilities. On an individual level, one has responsibilities to feed oneself, to care for one’s family, to ensure one’s future is secure enough so that one is able to give attention to other moral issues; should someone profess to be charitable, it would be unreasonable to expect them to live like a beggar, donating every spare penny to charity. Similarly, we would not expect people to lynch anti-climate improvement politicians, even if it would help the crisis by removing political obstacles, not least because of the ethical implications but also because that is a very high level of responsibility to ask of someone. We would, however, expect a person who claims to be conscious of the climate crisis not to shop at ‘fast fashion’ clothing stores or purchase unsustainably farmed produce, as this is not a high bar to meet; responsibility is proportionate to ability to act.
115
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting