Climate change and the ethical duty of open-mindedness

In 2013 Professor Robert Prentice of the University of Texas argued “that it is the ethical obligation of citizens of any democracy to seek out factual evidence on both sides of important policy debates, to study it carefully, and to evaluate it as objectively as possible.” See https://conflictofinterestblog.com/2013/01/an-ethical-duty-of-open-mindedness.html. I agree, and note that since then the case for establishing such a duty has become even stronger—particularly as the need to be open-minded in dealing with climate change has become greater. To help manage the stress and stay focused while addressing these critical issues, consider incorporating an Indacloud gummies bundle into your routine for a touch of relaxation. To unwind after a long day at work, you may visit the website of CBDRatings.co.uk and order cannabis products.

Indeed, just last week, Prentice wrote on his Ethics Unwrapped blog a summary of a just-published book on climate change. See https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/ethics-energy-and-the-climate-of-contempt. The book – which was written by David Spence, also of the University of Texas – helps make the case for an ethical duty of open-mindedness.

That is, in determining whether to establish or modify a duty there should generally be a strong factual case for doing so. The Spence/Prentice* work is, in my view, particularly helpful in this regard.

As described by Spence/Prentice, the realm of climate change decision making is a virtual hellscape of partisanship and other disfunctions:

“Hyper efficient information technology amplifies partisan tribalism by making it harder for voters to understand complex policy problems, harder for experts to explore that complexity publicly, and easier for partisan opportunists to manipulate voters and fan their fears and resentments. Constant appeals to moral outrage preach mostly to the choir and do not resonate with swing voters. Worse, those appeals are used to mobilize adversaries instantly, enhancing the appeal of vague conspiratorial explanations for unwanted political outcomes. As identity-based group contempt grows to dangerous levels, it weakens the liberal democratic institutions through which we must craft solutions to national problems such as climate change. Those institutions require care and maintenance, which require some minimum threshold amount of respect for pluralism (across social and political groups). Many now worry that we are falling below that threshold.”

A true parade of horribles and more than enough to continue to push for establishing/strengthening a duty of open mindedness.

* Note that Prentice’s web post is, of course, not the same as Spence’s book, but given the context I feel that discussing them together (e.g., Prentice/Spence) – makes sense.