Each person is capable of assuming an impartial perspective referred to as a moral point of view, the person being a rational and self-governing being. When a person seeks to arbitrate a dispute rationally and in an impartial manner, he is considered to have taken a moral point of view. A moral POV involves the application of reason as opposed to emotions despite the fact that moral issues usually invite strong emotional responses. A moral point of view can be viewed in light of altruism or egoism. Morality is seen to require some form of self-sacrifice referred to as altruism where individuals forego their self-interests for the benefit of others. On the contrary, egoism deems people as intrinsically self-centered and primarily chase their self-interests ( MacKinnon and Fiala, A. (2017).
Climate change is a topic that today raises many ethical issues. It is a global phenomenon that threatens fundamental values. Collectively, nation states would like to reduce greenhouse emissions to avert climate change but individually, they prefer to continue emitting greenhouse gases unimpeded for economic gains. This is despite the fact that climate affects are felt throughout the planet. Climate change affects virtually everyone but it is the actions of a few that lead to the negative effects being experienced today in the form of heat waves, hurricanes, typhoons, flooding, among others. Human beings should endeavor to reduce or do away with activities that contribute to greenhouse emissions in order to save the world from climate change and reduce its effects.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This calls for an altruistic approach to this moral problem. In this case, individuals, leaders and nation states should show concern for not only the well-being of others but also of the environment. Economic well-being should be sacrificed for the interest of the planet. Egoism in this case will be counterproductive. Selfishness, taking advantage of others and being uncaring by failing to reduce greenhouse emissions has dire consequences for all. Economic gains could be made individually but climate change negative effects are not discriminatory. There is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change in different parts of the world. Acting selfishly will not only lower the prospects of others but eventually of the perpetrators as well. On the contrary, individual sacrifice of every individual, leader and nation state will improve the life quality and prospects for all. Reducing greenhouse emissions to sustainable levels will lower the dire effects of climate change throughout the world. Altruistic behavior in this case will therefore benefit everyone.
Even without invisibility as in the Gyges case, Nation States led by egoistic leaders are feigning ignorance to scientifically proven facts to pursue economic prosperity to the detriment of the climate. If such leaders were invisible as Gyges, their selfish interests would be enhanced and no efforts would have been made to avert climate change. This however does not necessarily mean all leaders would do the same as Glaucon suggests. It is generally better and to the benefit of many if morality is followed. Some leaders may, even if invincible, restrain themselves from only pursuing economic prosperity for fear of reprisal. Fear might play as a factor motivating them to be moral. They may also be intrinsically altruistic.
Glaucon suggests that were everyone as invincible as Gyges, they will take what they want from others ( MacKinnon and Fiala, A. (2017).. While this may be true of most individuals, it is not absolute. Just the mere knowledge that greenhouse emissions contribute negatively to climate change is enough to convince me to do everything morally possible to control the situation. Self discipline comes before what is required legally.
References
MacKinnon, Barbara, Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Cengage
Learning.
