Question If a person who calls themselves a philosopher is not concerned to stay ecological (stay green) is that person still a philosopher?

Accepted:
December 10, 2016

Comments

What you're asking is whether

What you're asking is whether there could be a philosophical perspective that argued against 'staying green'. Of course there could be. For example, someone might think that the predicted bad effects of climate change will mainly affect people who are not yet born, and that individual may additionally reason that we owe no moral duty to people who do not yet exist. In that case they will not be motivated to stay green - they may even think staying green is a bad thing all in all, since it means some short-term sacrifice of prosperity on the part of presently existing people. A bigger point is that philosophy is incredibly broad both in subject matter and range of views: that we find a view distasteful or morally wrong does not mean it cannot be a philosophical view. In fact, to the extent that the view *we* hold has philosophical underpinnings, opposing views are guaranteed to have philosophical underpinnings available as well. Whether either view has good philosophical reasons supporting it is another matter!

Question If a person who calls themselves a philosopher is not concerned to stay ecological (stay green) is that person still a philosopher? Accepted:December 10, 2016

Question If a person who calls themselves a philosopher is not concerned to stay ecological (stay green) is that person still a philosopher?

Accepted:
December 10, 2016