Stephen Gardiner, Philosophy, University of Washington

Professor Stephen Gardiner here talks about the perfect moral storm, the precautionary principle, and geoengineering.

0:10: What’s your general view on geoengineering?
0:48: Is this related to your “lesser evil” argument?
2:01: So that’s part of the “emergency argument,” but there’s a different argument associated with lesser evils, yes?
3:56: Is the analogy of moral marring in Sophie’s case applicable to the case of states or state actors?
5:04: What kind of reception have you gotten from the scientific community when you present your views?
5:51: Do you find that more concrete examples, like your Sophie’s Choice case, are more resonant with the scientific community, or are more abstract arguments better?
6:38: When advocates for geoengineering say that geoengineering will be beneficial to all, what is your response?
7:56: Where do you think the general public stands on geoengineering?
9:06: In earlier work, you characterized climate change as a “perfect moral storm.” Could you explain that a bit?
11:40: One more time, with feeling.
13:24: How do you understand the precautionary principle?