Project 6.1

A lack of trust in other parties can lead to a breakdown in shared climate effort. The core question is: does the large-scale climate inaction of powerful actors – governments and corporations – excuse individual citizens from their own responsibilities? This PhD project studies the issue of climate responsibility from an interdisciplinary perspective. We seek a PhD candidate who is trained as a philosopher (preferably in ethics) but has an interest in (social) psychology. You will analyse normative arguments regarding fairness and autonomy between actors with unequal power. Furthermore, you will compare these arguments against empirical data on how Dutch citizens perceive the shifting responsibilities between themselves, the state and corporations.

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’).

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.