“Calculated moral failure”: Accounting for the moral failings of others

In his article, “Is ‘Arming the Future’ with Geoengineering Really the Lesser Evil?”, Stephen Gardiner foresees a ‘nightmare scenario’ in which people are forced to choose between a global catastrophe and ‘the lesser evil’ of geoengineered technology. As he discusses, there seems to be a kind of “calculated moral failure” or “moral schizophrenia” present in the idea of pursuing geoengineering research while so many better options for saving the planet from climate change are currently available to us. However, I think it should be noted that this moral failure is not that of an individual person, but of a group; there is a kind of ‘identity problem’ in his discussion of moral accountability. I think we should discuss the implications of this.

Consider how the advocates of geoengineering projects are not necessarily the same individuals responsible for excessive carbon emissions and for climate change. In this way, while the decision to begin geoengineering research in preparation for a future scenario where it might be necessary is a “calculated moral failure”, it is not necessarily the moral failure of the person doing the calculating. Instead, it might be calculated by geoengineers on behalf of the irresponsible citizens of the world. If the motivation to pursue geoengineering lies in the expectation of the continued moral failings of others, I think this is justified.

Of course, as Gardiner acknowledges, the options of reducing our carbon emissions and beginning geoengineering research are not mutually exclusive; while it is uncertain to what degree we should pursue each of these, we should probably do both. So, if we genuinely try to decrease our carbon emissions and at the same time begin geoengineering research, knowing it might necessary because of others’ failure to reduce their own emissions, this can hardly be thought of as a moral failure. Indeed, it might be said that we should try harder to get others to reduce emissions, but we will only achieve so much success at this, and at a certain point it becomes a better use of time to in some capacity pursue geoengineering.

Let’s reconsider who is morally at fault. So, while Gardiner considers the pursuit of geoengineering research to be the acknowledgement of a moral failure, we might respond by saying that if one does not advocate the taking of precautionary measures, keeping in mind the inevitable proportion of the population that does not adopt a more responsible lifestyle (such precautionary measures might be advocating geoengineering research), that is also a moral failure. Again, while beginning geoengineering research is acknowledging a moral failure, it is not necessarily our failure. Furthermore, we might actually be obligated to do such research.