Sustainability is a controversial topic in today’s society, provoking heated debates surrounding where our moral responsibilities actually lie. Some feel that we as individuals have a moral obligation to not commit acts that lead to global warming and an unsustainable future when everyone does them. While it might be ideal for everyone to avoid these acts, ultimately there is no moral obligation for individuals to abstain from acts that collectively lead to global warming because the individual acts themselves of each person does not cause global warming.

Much of the arguments and reasoning in this essay found inspiration from the paper It's not my Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations by Sinnott-Armstrong. Generally, the same base assumptions were made in order for this argument to be presented. First, global warming, caused by human actions, is presently occurring and unleashes a variety of harms to the planet and all its inhabitants. Second, by changing our behavior, something can be done to decrease its effects. Third, the actions being examined for the sake of this essay surround actions that provide no benefit other than enjoyment to the doer, yet produce some sort of negative effect on the environment when those actions are repeated in the collective. They will be examined as far as their impact on sustainability and causing global warming. 

For this purpose, Brundtland sustainability is used, which is defined as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This paper examines the causation of global warming, so an action that contributes to global warming would compromise future generations and be unsustainable. A moral obligation is defined as something that you should do, otherwise it would be considered morally wrong. Coming to a conclusion surrounding this moral obligation in sustainability debate is important to every one of our lifestyles. If we do in fact have moral obligation, then we will need to alter our actions to align with what is now considered morally obligatory. If there is no moral obligation, then we need not worry about this and can continue living carefree. 

Firstly, it must be understood that what is ideal is not the same as having a moral obligation. Almost everyone would agree that sustainability is important, and having everyone live sustainable lives would be ideal. However, we are examining the moral obligations of individuals, not necessarily what would be best for them to do. So maybe it is the case that not doing something is best, but that does not necessarily translate to a moral obligation.

Secondly, it must be established who causes global warming. Is it the actions of individuals or a collection of individuals? Pretty much universally, it can be stated that global warming is caused by the collection of individuals, not by the individuals themselves. If just one individual committed the act, there wouldn’t be global warming and its harmful effects wouldn’t be seen. Therefore, global warming can be said to be caused by a collective action, rather than an individualistic one.

With the case of global warming, there are no harms that spread from one's actions; the harms that spread from global warming are only from the collective actions. If you do or do not commit the action, it won’t impact global warming. You won’t be the one to cause the floods or earthquakes, and you won’t be the one to stop them. If you were to stop doing the action, then global warming will persist regardless. The individual is part of the collective that causes the harm, but that individual itself is not causing the harm.

The individual understands that their actions do not cause the harm, nor have an impact on the harm since the harm will persist regardless. Therefore, the individual makes the logical choice that the benefit of the action far outweighs the nonexistent harm. When everyone makes this deduction, eventually that adds up to result in global warming, but no one individual can be blamed for this. This is also not selfish, but merely a logical computation by an individual. Individuals are responsible for their actions, but not for the actions of others. To try to say that an individual has a moral obligation associated with sustainability is to say that they should have some sort of responsibility for the actions of others, which quite simply isn’t fair. It is reasonable to say that it is ideal for each person to abstain from these acts, but it cannot be a moral obligation since each person controls only their actions, which do not directly cause harm.

Obviously, not everyone will agree with this conclusion. Many objections could be made, but one of the more popular ones would be that this argument assumes that each person has no contribution at all to the harm. It is correct that an individual's action does not increase global warming itself; the effects from that person cannot be tangibly felt. However, it is wrong to assume that the individual does not contribute to global warming in any capacity. In order for global warming to occur, enough of these actions must be committed to form this “collective”. By this logic, each person does in fact contribute to causing the harm, even though their individual actions aren’t felt. Just by being part of the collective, they indirectly cause harm. An objector would argue that my rationale only views the individual actions from its direct impact on the harm, and not from its indirect contribution to the harm.

While this objection is logical, it ultimately fails to undermine the given rationale. It tries to argue that by being a part of the collective, an individual is somehow responsible for the harm that’s caused, even though that individual did not cause the harm. Technically, the individual is in fact contributing to the collective. However, that contribution is so miniscule that it cannot be felt, hence why it never causes harm itself. The contribution is so small that by comparison to the collective itself, the individual's action can practically be ignored. It simply is just so small, that whether the individual commits the action or not makes no difference. Therefore the fact that they contribute to the collective is a true but irrelevant fact when it comes to the moral obligations of the individual. Simply being a part of the collective does not necessarily give evidence of a moral obligation. The collective causes harm while the individual does not, and those facts must remain separate. Simply because the collective does harm and the individual is a part of the collective does not mean that the individual is to blame for the collective harm.

Sustainability debates are ignored by some and stressed upon endlessly by others. It can pretty much be agreed that humanity’s collective actions have led to global warming, which have disastrous effects in the short term, and life altering effects in the long term. The ideas presented found inspiration from Sinnott-Armstrong, in his article It's not my Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations. After examining the intricacies surrounding this debate, it is determined that although it may be ideal for everyone to avoid these acts, ultimately there lies no moral obligation for individuals to refrain from acts that collectively lead to global warming.