Spring 2021 PHIL209A Philosophy and Climate Change (DePauw University)
Course Overview
This course explores the interrelations between philosophy and climate change. At the same time, it introduces students to theories and concepts in many different areas of the discipline of philosophy. We will explore philosophical questions about morality and justice as we ask questions such as:
What does justice demand governments do about climate change?
Do individuals have moral obligations to reduce their carbon footprint?
Do we have the right to have children given the effect humans have on the climate?
What is valuable about future generations, and how does that affect what we must do about climate change?
We will explore philosophical questions about the nature of science and its methods by asking questions such as:
What is the nature of the evidence for climate change and its causes?
What is the nature of observational data in climate science, and how do the data support hypotheses about climate change?
What is a scientific model, and what are climate models?
What is the nature of probability and confidence judgments in climate science?
Do moral and ethical values affect our assessment of the probability of hypotheses about the climate?
Can we rely on scientific experts alone to justify our beliefs about climate change?
I believe the philosophical theories and tools we will employ in answering such questions improve our thinking about climate change and clarify arguments for and against potential solutions to the problems which climate change raises.
Assignments and Online Participation
I want to foster extensive weekly involvement from students individually and collectively while streamlining workload. To achieve these goals, there are only two kinds of assignments to turn in for this course:
Short papers: 75% of your grade consists of five short papers, 15% of the grade each. They will likely range from two to four full paragraphs in length. They will test your ability to identify and summarize arguments in texts, craft arguments defending philosophical views, and consider objections to your arguments – all done in a clear and succinct way. The last short paper is due Wednesday 11:59PM EDT of exam week – May 19th.
Short assignments: 25% of your grade consists in your average grade on short assignments. They will be assigned on a majority of weeks. If they are due on a week, they will be announced on the Wednesday of that week and due Friday night at 11:59 PM EDT of that week. The content of assignments will vary. Examples of what they may involve: questions on the week’s reading content, questions asking you to discern an argument in a piece of text, questions asking you to evaluate an argument in a text, or a reflection piece on an article or a podcast distinct from the assigned readings.
A bonus point will be added to your grade if you engage in a certain high level of participation, mainly via teamwork. (This additional point may sound minor, but it is similar to having an attendance score as a small but significant percentage of your grade: for example, if you get a 91 on everything but participation, adding 1 point to a 91 to get a 92 is equivalent to getting a 92 and getting 100 on participation with participation counted as a little more than 10% of the grade). For how participation affects your grade, see below.
In addition, I have three small requirements to pass:
1. You must meet me in my office hours or by appointment at least once in the semester, for at least about fifteen minutes, to discuss anything related to the course. See the Meeting Me section for figuring out how we can meet each other.
2. Some participation and engagement: see below.
3. You must get a 7 out of 10 on a quiz on the syllabus before the semester ends, on Moodle. You may re-take it as many times as you would like.
Participation. Participation is expected. “Expected” and “expectation” in this syllabus means that it something that I highly recommend in order for all of us to have the best course we can.
Teamwork. By the end of Week 1, I will split up the course into two teams: the Claws and the Stripes. (We’re the DePauw Tigers, after all, so let’s show some team spirit with our teams!). Each Tuesday and Thursday will have a reading. The Claws team up for the Tuesday readings, and the Stripes team up for the Thursday readings. Week 8, I will switch.
What does it mean to team up for the reading? Each team will have a Google Doc I will set up. For the reading for your team, I expect you to work with your teammates to do your best answer these four questions for each reading before class starts:
1. What is the thesis or theses of the paper?
2. What arguments are offered for the thesis/es?
3. Is the thesis true/are the theses true?
4. Do the arguments support the thesis/es?
To show that you have contributed, insert a comment on the Google Docs with the comment function with your initial thoughts. Then, work together on the doc below the questions to try to come up with some answers.
I expect engaged contribution. What does that mean? It does not mean writing something of assignment quality. So, do not stress over wording things precisely or correctly. Do not stress about grammar or spelling. Do not feel the need to write a paragraph that looks like it is in an essay. I am just looking for evidence that you are thinking about how to answer the questions and that you are attempting, when reasonable, to engage in conversation with your peers about this. Think of it as writing down what you would say when making a genuine effort to partake a group activity with the aim of understanding and thinking about the material together. As a final comment, I note that you do not have to agree with your peers. In fact, you may realize you are stuck on how to answer the questions, together or individually. That is totally fine. Just try to work to answer them, however you can, and explain what puzzles or confuses you, if you can.
I will award points to teams each week for their contributions. The team with the most points will not get any grade benefits, but something far, far more valuable: a trophy at the end of my semester. It will be made of the finest metals and worth a lot of money. Just kidding.
Course Calendar
Abbreviations: ‘CM’ for John Broome’s book Climate Matters, ‘PCS’ for Eric Winsberg’s book Philosophy and Climate Science, ‘T’ for Tuesday, ‘R’ for Thursday.
Week 1, Feb 1st. Starting out.
T: Introduction. Watching “Thin Ice” [documentary about climate scientists]. R: CM, Chapter 1, “Introduction” and Chapter 2, “Science.”
Week 2, Feb 8th. Introducing key questions and concepts.
T: PCS, Chapter 1, “Introduction.” [Introductory discussion of epistemology and philosophy of science.] R: NPR article: “Should We Be Having Kids in the Age of Climate Change?” [Introductory discussion of moral and political philosophy]
Week 3, Feb 15th. Climate change, harm, and morality.
T: CM, Chapter 4, “Justice and Fairness.” R: CM, Chapter 5, “Private Morality.”
Week 4, Feb 22nd. Observation and data.
T: Pierre Duhem, “Physical Theory and Experiment” (from The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory) R: PCS, Chapter 2, “Data.”
Week 5, March 1st. Climate change, rights, and justice.
T: Simon Caney, “Climate Change, Human Rights, and Moral Thresholds.” R: Clare Heyward, “Climate Change as Cultural Injustice.”
Week 6, March 8th. Climate change and individual obligations.
T: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations” Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. R: Avram Hiller, “Climate Change and Individual Responsibility.”
Week 7, March 15th. Climate models and attributing causes.
T: No class. R: PCS, Chapter 3, “Models” and Chapter 4 “Simulations,” Sections 1-3.
Week 8, March 22nd. Probability and uncertainty.
T: PCS, Chapter 6, “Probability” and Chapter 7, “Confidence,” Section 6 only [the rest of Chapter 7 as optional reading]. R: CM, Chapter 7, “Uncertainty.”
Week 9, March 29th. Climate, integrity, and respect for nature.
T: Marion Hourdequin, “Climate Change, Collective Action, and Individual Ethical Obligations”. R: Dale Jamieson, “Climate Change, Responsibility, and Justice.”
Week 10, April 5th. Climate science and the future.
T: Thomas Sinclair, “Why Should We Care If Humans Die Out?”. [Optional reading: Chapter 2 of Samuel Scheffler, Why Worry about Future Generations?] R: No class.
Week 11, April 12th. Climate science and value.
T: Video by Peer Models Network on science, values, and modeling with focus on health care (with Eric Winsberg as collaborator). PCS, Chapter 9, “Values,” Sections 1 and 2. R: PCS, Chapter 9, “Values,” Sections 3 through 8.
Week 12, April 19th. Climate change, scientific consensus, and social epistemology.
T: Kristen Intemann, “Who Needs Consensus Anyway? Addressing Manufactured Doubt and Increasing Public Trust in Climate Science.” R: PCS, Chapter 12, “Social Epistemology.”
Week 13, April 26th. Climate change and children.
T: Sarah Conly, One Child: Do We Have a Right to More?, Chapter 2: “The Right to a Family.” R: No class.
Week 14, May 3rd. Climate colonialism, climate skepticism
T: Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò and Beba Cibralic, “The Case for Climate Reparations.” R: Alex Worsnip, “The Skeptic and the Climate Change Skeptic.”
Week 15, May 10th. Wrap-up
T: Wrap-up discussion R: Group office hour to discuss final paper ideas.