Homework on Sinnott-Armstrong, It's Not My Fault, and Chad Vance, Climate change, individual emissions, and foreseeing harm


All answers must be in your own words. In the Vance paper, Vance says things like "x iff y." This means "If x, then y; if x is not true, then y is not true.".

1. Sinnott-Armstrong focuses on arguing that we are not obligated to reduce wasteful driving. However, if his arguments work, then they would apply to other actions as well, showing that we don't have obligations to do these actions. What are some other actions, beside reducing wasteful driving, that Sinnott-Armstrong's arguments would apply to? (2pts)

2. Sinnott-Armstrong gives arguments against a number of principles. Which argument against which principle is the most convincing? Explain the argument in your own words and explain why it is a good argument. (2pts)

3. a. What is Vance's main argument against Sinnott-Armstrong? I'm not asking what Vance's thesis is, but rather what the main evidence Vance give to support it. (2pt)
b. Which view do you find more plausible, Vance's, Sinnott-Armstrong's, or neither? Why? (2pts)

4. If Vance's view is right, what is something that ordinary people do often (not discussed in either reading) that is morally wrong? Briefly explain why it would be wrong according to Vance. (2pts)