In previous blogs there has been talk about the “One Child Policy” in
Morally, the message is to help control the human overcrowding in areas that have less. In these areas birth control and other contraceptives are very expensive and not used as commonly as first world countries. The carbon credit is almost like a bribe to help these unfortunate people prosper and be able to enjoy their lives a little bit better as well as help regulate the number of people produced. People who count morally are the people receiving this carbon credit. Also, the tax payers who are going to be paying to fund this program also count morally.
From a consequentialist’s point of view, the goods that can come out of this action, sees this being a good opportunity for high fertility areas such as Africa to help reduce overpopulation as well as earn some money to help them move on in life. As well, if this action works, other countries may believe it can help them with overpopulation woes and implement this action. A negative consequence of this action is that the amount of money given out may not be justified by only having one child. I mean, some families may want to have more than one child but I guess will have to be ‘bribed’ with more money than the government would want to give them. Depending on the family of course, this could be a problem or it could not.
A non-consequentialist point of view examines the goodness of the act itself. The act here, applying the carbon credit, can be seen as an ethically correct act that can benefit the world and environment. Although the consequences for this may be only slightly negative, they are not dwelled upon.
In conclusion, either view has different ethical aspects that are pointed out in the article. In the long term the effects of this policy could have a positive affect on the environment and that it would be supported by the areas that it would be applied.