Research task (Hypotheticals & Philosophy):
How much should we (the current generation) have to change our lives to tackle climate change for for future generations?

I want you to
1. explain and compare at least two ethical frameworks (eg utilitarianism, deontology, contractualism) that address duties to future people
2. discuss the concept of non-identity problem and its implications for climate ethics
3. evaluate real-world policies (eg carbon taxes, intergenerational equity acts) that try to codify long-term responsibility
4. reference at least one philosophical source and one empirical policy example
5. address possible counterarguments, like claims about discounting the future or epistemic uncertainty

Evaluation rubric:
criterion: The response clearly explains utilitarian reasoning as applied to climate action (e.g., maximizing well-being, impartiality by focusing on climate outcomes, running cost-benefit analyses, addressing inequality by having richer and stronger nations pledge more toward climate action).
weight: 4
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response clearly explains deontological (Kantian) reasoning in the context of intergenerational justice and duties to future generations, emphasizing that intergenerational justice is not only a matter of consequences but also a moral obligation of all generations.
weight: 4
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response mentions the non-identity problem with accurate citation (e.g., Derek Parfit) and explains that we cannot harm future people by bringing them into existence in a suboptimal but still worthwhile state if a different course of action would have led to an entirely different set of people existing instead.
weight: 4
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response explains the non-identity problem and how it affects climate ethics, highlighting situations where an action seems clearly wrong but no specific individual is harmed by it (e.g., burning materials if toxic byproducts end up elsewhere, dumping into open drains, cutting trees for land, or throwing toxic waste into recycling or trash).
weight: 4
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response distinguishes between person-affecting and impersonal ethics, explaining that person-affecting ethics focuses on the welfare of specific, existing individuals, while impersonal ethics concerns the overall state of the world or the maximization of total value, and applies this distinction by identifying which ethical frameworks fall into each category (e.g., contractualism and deontology as person-affecting, utilitarianism as impersonal).
weight: 2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response incorporates a real-world legal framework (e.g., Well-being of Future Generations Act, the Montreal Protocol, the Paris Agreements, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
weight: 4
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response frames the carbon tax as a case of economic moral translation, converting moral obligations such as accountability for climate change, pollution, and safeguarding the future into economic incentives, costs, and market signals.
weight: -1
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response critiques discounting the future from an economic perspective (e.g., valuing the current generation more than future ones, undermining long-term projects, favoring stronger economies, or dismissing projects because the current generation will not benefit).
weight: 3
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response discusses epistemic uncertainty, defined as a lack of knowledge, information, or understanding about a system, and connects it to the precautionary principle, which holds that when there are potential threats of serious or irreversible harm, the lack of full scientific certainty should not justify postponing cost-effective preventative measures.
weight: 3
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response omits key counter-counterarguments about population ethics or resource allocation (e.g., antisocial behavior, market risks, unfairness, or burdens for unseen generations).
weight: -1
axis: Instruction Following

criterion: The response lacks discussion of Rawlsian theory, which proposes a thought experiment of a just society in which people unaware of their social status and personal characteristics (under a "veil of ignorance") are compelled to choose principles that promote the greatest good for all, particularly for the least advantaged.
weight: -2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response does not evaluate cultural or global pluralism in intergenerational duties (e.g., highlighting diverse approaches to ethics, family structures, and responsibilities across different societies).
weight: -1
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response misses Indigenous or non-Western conceptions of climate responsibility, which emphasize a holistic, reciprocal relationship between humans and the natural world (e.g., worshipping nature deities, living in the wild, avoiding overconsumption of natural resources, and recycling waste products).
weight: -1
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response lacks discussion of moral demandingness or the scope of sacrifice, where moral demandingness refers to the extent of sacrifice required to fulfill obligations even at significant personal cost when the standard is set too high.
weight: -1
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response fails to address rights-based objections to limiting current-generation liberties, which center on the idea that current people's rights should not be infringed upon for the potential benefit of future, non-existent people (e.g., the primacy of personal autonomy, property rights, and economic freedoms).
weight: -2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response lacks critique of Kantian ethics’ limitations in collective action (e.g., the free-rider problem, lack of collective responsibility versus individualism, neglect of consequences, and formalism over substance, which argues his ethics are too abstract to translate into concrete rules).
weight: -2
axis: Instruction Following

criterion: The response fails to mention climate justice or historical emissions from colonial powers (e.g., resource diversion during world wars, resource exploitation during the industrial revolution, environmental degradation, and inequality between colonizers and the colonized).
weight: -2
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response lacks discussion from Global South perspectives or climate vulnerability (e.g., crop failures in South Africa, cyclones in India and Bangladesh, food insecurity in southern and eastern African nations like Kenya or Somalia, and forced relocations in South Pacific islands).
weight: -1
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response lacks alternative ethical frameworks (e.g., virtue ethics as a desire for a virtuous world, care ethics as motivation for empathy toward others, contractarianism as motivation for social cooperation, deontology as a duty toward others).
weight: -2
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response contains one policy example passed with the future generation in mind, illustrating “duties toward the future” (e.g., National Environmental Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or carbon neutrality pledges).
weight: 2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response cites an academic philosophical source and a legal policy example (e.g., the Paris Agreement for legal policy, Kantian works for philosophy, Butler’s Climate Change and Threats to Civilization, or A Theory of Justice by John Rawls).
weight: 1
axis: References & Citation Quality

criterion: The response discusses differences in climate between older and current generations (e.g., global temperature increases, phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons, wider use of warming technologies, and overall cooler climates 100 years ago).
weight: 2
axis: Implicit Criteria

criterion: The response discusses potential ways in which climate change will continue to affect future generations (e.g., warmer climates, rising sea levels and scarcity of fresh drinking water, higher risks of UV-related cancers due to ozone depletion, and higher economic costs with rising living expenses).
weight: 2
axis: Implicit Criteria

criterion: The response mentions the ways in which the current generation actively contributes to climate change (e.g., data centers, AI, private planes, and personal air conditioning).
weight: 2
axis: Implicit Criteria