Vacancy

• MA/MSc degree in philosophy; interest in, and ideally some familiarity with social psychology
• Interest in the topic of social cohesion and in collaborating in a broad research consortium with academic and non-academic stakeholders
• Strong interest in interdisciplinary research, including analytical and theoretical dimensions
• Professional competence in English
• Professional competence in Dutch 
• Strong academic records in contemporary analytic ethics, as evidenced by grade transcripts and relevant coursework
• Eagerness to integrate theories and research findings from two fields (ethics and social psychology) in the research project
• Affinity with and/or training in the field of (social) psychology and/or quantitative/qualitative data analyses is considered a bonus
• We look for team players who want to play an active role in an inter- and transdisciplinary research community and training programme

One of the current challenges in society testing the social ties between individual citizens and institutions is the occurrence of climate change and the need for climate adaptation, securing a sustainable society for future generations. This project focuses on the role of (perceived) responsibilities of and between different parties (individuals and institutions such as organizations or the government) for taking climate action.

The project aims to investigate what arguments for and/or perceptions of shared responsibilities for climate change between such parties might unravel the ties between individuals and institutions that are needed for social cohesion (e.g., ‘I do care about climate change, but I won’t take responsibility [e.g., stop flying] until corporations/governments take more responsibility to address the issue’) as well as what arguments for and/or perceptions of shared responsibilities for climate change between such parties can strengthen those ties needed for social cohesion (e.g., ‘I see that we both care about climate change and feel responsible, so when you do your part, I will do mine’).

This interdisciplinary PhD project addresses two key questions:

1. Within ethics: To what extent is the non-compliance of larger actors (corporations, governments) a valid excuse for individuals to refrain from enacting personal responsibility?
2. Within social psychology: How does people’s willingness to enact personal responsibility depend on their perception of what larger actors do?

Phase 1: An Ethics Perspective

In this phase, sub-questions that will be examined are:

1. a) Is responsibility for climate change zero-sum (i.e., if some parties get/take less responsibility, are other parties automatically more responsible)?

For instance, if corporations take less responsibility, are citizens then more responsible, or are they also less responsible? Or are such responsibilities independent?

1. b) What are the arguments in favour of non-compliance of larger actors undermining one’s own responsibilities, and what are the arguments in favour of such non-compliance being irrelevant?

In this phase of the project, the candidate is expected to specialize and engage in the debate around Miller’s (2011) ‘Taking Up the Slack? Responsibility and Justice in Situations of Partial Compliance’. This debate concerns the question of what to do when other parties fail to do their share (of accomplishing a collective goal). If (some) others fail to do their share, should you still do yours, or are you also allowed to do less? Alternatively, should you do more, and take up the slack of others (i.e., to ensure the shared objective is met)? One central tension is between a principle of fairness, which suggests people should not have to do more than others, and a victim-oriented concern, which holds that significant harm should be averted even if it means taking on a disproportionate burden.

The candidate is, first, expected to collect and review arguments pro and contra the view that parties should still do their own share, even when others slack. Second, the candidate will consider these arguments specifically in the context of climate change. In this context, the question is whether, for example, countries should still meet their emissions targets even when other countries do not. Third, and this step is new, the candidate will consider these arguments in contexts where actors are not of the same ‘size’. Should smaller actors still do their share even when larger actors slack? Or, in terms of our case, should individual citizens still do their share even when they believe corporations and governments fail to do theirs?

Some hypotheses:

• Victim-oriented arguments are compelling in certain contexts, but might not establish that smaller parties should do their proportionate share if it is rendered futile by large-actor non-compliance.
• Alternative arguments based on autonomy – that one should not allow larger actors to dictate one’s own commitments – seem to be more promising in this respect, although it remains to be seen if they make realistic demands on agents.

Phase 2: A Social-Psychological Perspective

The second discipline addressed in the project is social psychology. Drawing on insights from the second supervisor, and by examining existing data, the candidate is asked to study the extent to which the arguments distilled from the three steps described above correspond to (or are different from) the arguments generated within society. Specifically, the candidate will be asked to compare the arguments to the findings described in the reports provided by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP) on how Dutch citizens perceive the (shifting) responsibilities between citizens, corporations and the Dutch government with regard to climate change and climate action. Additionally, the existing data on which this report is based might be used for further explorations and analyses to enhance this comparison.

Sub-questions addressed in this phase of the project are:

1. a) How do citizens in the Netherlands perceive the shared or distribution of responsibility for climate change between themselves, corporations and the government? To what extent do citizens in the Netherlands have the impression that corporations/governments do, or do not, enact enough responsibility?
2. b) How does people’s willingness to enact personal responsibility depend on their perception of what larger actors do?

Ethics

The core ethical component is a philosophical analysis focusing on the fairness debate in contexts of partial compliance (non-ideal theory). This involves:

• A conceptual and argumentative review: systematically collecting and reviewing arguments for and against individual responsibility in the face of non-compliance by larger actors (corporations, governments).
• Case application: applying these arguments specifically to the context of climate change and the asymmetry of actors (small individuals versus large institutions).

Social Psychology

The social psychology component is empirical and comparative, utilizing existing data:

• Empirical comparison: examining reports and potentially existing datasets from the SCP to understand how Dutch citizens perceive the distribution of climate responsibility among themselves, corporations and the government.

• Argument comparison: comparing the normative arguments distilled from the ethical analysis with the perceptions, reasons and intuitions found in the empirical data.

Miller, D. (2011). Taking up the slack? Responsibility and justice in situations of partial compliance. In C. Knight & Z. Stemplowska (Eds.), Responsibility and distributive justice (pp. 230–245). Oxford University Press.

Karnein, A. (2014). Putting fairness in its place: Why there is a duty to take up the slack. The Journal of Philosophy, 111(11), 593–607.