Abstract: In order to advance a neatly deductive argument, Christopher J. Preston must make a number of assumptions and framing decisions that exclude important practical points from the scope of his analysis. We do not criticize him for doing so, as these simplifications allow him to advance a concise argument about an ethically complex subject. However, as scholars of politics and law, we are interested in what this ethical argument means—and does not mean—for the messy politics of climate engineering. Accordingly, in our response we unpack the political implications of some of Preston’s assumptions and framing decisions in an effort to add a layer of practical richness to the abstraction of Preston’s analysis.
Keywords: climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, doctrine of double effect, unintended harms, closeness thesis
Full response available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Review
The Theory of Self-Determination, Fernando R. Tesón, ed.
This volume brings together international lawyers and philosophers, both skeptics and proponents, to debate the right to self-determination, enhancing our understanding of the normative issues ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Review
Briefly Noted: When States Come Out: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility
A brief review of Philip Ayoub's When States Come Out: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility.
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Review
Justice in Conflict: The Effects of the International Criminal Court’s Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace by Mark Kersten
In this book, Mark Kersten convincingly shows that the implications of pursuing “during-conflict justice” are varied and fluid rather than dichotomous and deterministic. The nuanced ...