Walter Sinnott Armstrong Collective Action Issues Analysis

This paper seeks to explore the issue of collective responsibility in regards to climate change. More specifically, an analysis of Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s foundational distinction between situations in which the government’s failure to respond makes civilians morally obligated to act or not to act. Sinnott-Armstrong incorrectly places all moral obligation on the government in a hypothetical bridge situation, however individual are also morally obligated to act to reduce potential pain, suffering, or death experienced. Examining Sinnott-Armstrong’s bridge example reveals how individuals are morally obligated in collective action issues, and how that relates to climate change. Further discussion demonstrates that individual obligation has

The damaged bridge is parallel to the planet in its current state of degradation due to anthropogenic climate change. Because of our overuse of the planet and its resources, there is a figurative crack in the Earth. A growing percent of the population is now aware of this crack, and an even smaller fraction of those people try to motivate the government to repair the crack. According to Sinnott-Armstrong, that small group of people fulfilled their moral obligation in fighting climate change. However, most other people are still unaware of or skeptical about the crack and its consequences, therefore those who know about the climate change crack failed to do everything in their power to prevent pain, suffering, or death. The crack in the planet, just like the crack in the bridge, continues to grow with use, and, as it grows, the magnitude of potential pain, suffering, and death increases. If the group that’s aware of the crack fails to notify others about the crack and its dangers, they play an active role in allowing the problem to exacerbate, thus increasing the likelihood and magnitude of pain, suffering, and death caused by the crack. Therefore, these people act immorally by stopping at government action. Instead, four areas of moral obligation are as follows: changing our own actions, spreading the word, financial

If I should act in ways which reduce or prevent pain, suffering, or death, then stopping after simply changing my actions, spreading the word, contributing financially, and volunteering time is not sufficient. I should also dedicate myself to resolving the actual issue at hand. As with the bridge example, if I truly wanted to act in a way which reduced preventable pain, suffering, and death, I should not waste any time in waiting for the government to step in and fix the crack; I should learn how to fix the bridge, obtain the supplies to do so, and repair the crack myself. As with climate change, I should teach myself ways to sequester carbon on a large scale to combat climate change. In this case, there’s no question that I fulfilled my moral obligation in both situations as I directly addressed