Feasibility, normative heuristics and the proper place of historical responsibility – a reply to Ohndorf et al.
Schuppert F, Seidel C (2017)
Publication Language: English
Publication Status: In press
Publication Type: Journal article, Original article
Future Publication Type: Journal article
Publication year: 2017
Journal
Book Volume: 140
Pages Range: 101--107
Journal Issue: 2
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1861-4
Abstract
In this comment, we pick up three points raised by Ohndorf et al. (Clim Chang 133:385–395, 2015) in their reply to our ethical assessment of the German Advisory Council’s Budget Approach (WBGUBA). First, we discuss and clarify the relationship between ethics and political feasibility, highlighting that the way Ohndorf et al. use feasibility creates an unwarranted status quo bias. Second, we explain the proper place historical responsibility should have within the WBGUBA, stressing the fact that the reasons why we choose one policy proposal over another matter. Third, we analyze the limited extent to which a normative heuristic should motivate an ethically ambitious policy proposal like the WBGUBA.
Authors with CRIS profile
Involved external institutions
United Kingdom (GB)How to cite
APA:
Schuppert, F., & Seidel, C. (2017). Feasibility, normative heuristics and the proper place of historical responsibility – a reply to Ohndorf et al. Climatic Change, 140(2), 101--107. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1861-4
MLA:
Schuppert, Fabian, and Christian Seidel. "Feasibility, normative heuristics and the proper place of historical responsibility – a reply to Ohndorf et al." Climatic Change 140.2 (2017): 101--107.
BibTeX: Download