Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that the climate crisis is fundamentally linked to 'mimetic desire,' where individuals pursue luxury goods and status symbols not for their utility, but to emulate others. This cycle of conspicuous consumption fuels unsustainable economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. The author explores various philosophical and economic responses, including degrowth communism, minimalism, and the concept of 'Buen Vivir,' while concluding that neither perpetual growth nor utopian degrowth fully resolves the tension between fulfilling essential human needs and maintaining planetary boundaries. The text identifies a 'climate–development trilemma' where societal stability, basic needs, and resource efficiency are in constant conflict.

The author reconstructs a 'Thomistic theory of attention' by synthesizing various passages from Thomas Aquinas's works. The analysis identifies attention as a finite resource and a selective process of 'priority structuring' that allows finite cognitive agents—humans, animals, and angels—to process information piecemeal. The paper distinguishes between the 'specification' of a cognitive act (what is known) and its 'exercise' (the act of attending), asserting that the latter is primarily driven by the will or appetite. It further explores the varying degrees of volitional control over different types of attention (sensory vs. intellectual) and the role of external agents, such as teachers or God, in prompting attention. Finally, it links the direction of attention to moral well-being and the virtue of 'studiositas'.

The paper examines the historical roots of the human-nature divide, particularly in 'WEIRD' (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) countries, where nature is often viewed instrumentally. It contrasts this with indigenous worldviews that see humans as integral to the biosphere. The authors argue that human-nature connectedness (HNC) is a contextual ability that can be fostered through nature accessibility, authentic education, and the legal recognition of the Rights of Nature to move toward a biocentric model of sustainability.

The author uses political philosophy to analyze the contradictions in Donald Trump's political position and the nature of political competence. He argues that while Trump's victory reflects a failure of elites to connect with voters, the international community must respond by filtering emotional rhetoric and resolutely defending the rule of law, peace, and the battle against climate change. The author emphasizes that the United States is not the whole world and that the outcome of this political era depends on the collective response of others.

The paper explores how the roles individuals inhabit—such as professional or political positions—influence their opinions and the morality of their communication. The author distinguishes between 'ex ante' views (held before taking a role) and 'ex post' views (assumed because of a role), suggesting that many public conflicts are driven by transferable role-based loyalties rather than deep moral chasms. Using examples ranging from sports rivalries to the dispute between Hillary Clinton and the New York Times over Wikileaks, the author argues that recognizing these role-driven positions can foster more honest and civil discourse. However, the author emphasizes that this humility should not extend to hate speech or fascist ideologies, such as those of Anders Behring Breivik, which represent non-transferable violations of human dignity and require active societal confrontation.

The authors contrast the 'abuse of memory'—where past injustices are manipulated to legitimize violence—with an 'anamnetic' approach that uses personal and collective memory to find common human ground. Drawing on Paul Ricoeur, they argue that memory carries a 'duty of justice' toward others, particularly victims. To provide a practical alternative to divisive memory, the authors analyze the works of Augustine, Dante, and Petrarch, arguing that these thinkers view memory as a path from particular, personal experience toward universal truths and divine love. The paper concludes that while ideological memory separates, a conscious 'work of memory' can facilitate dialogue and reconciliation by recognizing shared human patterns of existence.

The paper examines the two functions of the doctrine of double effect (DDE): the permissive, which exculpates agents from negative consequences, and the restrictive, which assigns responsibility for foreseeable damages. The author contends that the common view of Thomas Aquinas as an advocate for the permissive version stems from a misreading of Summa theologiae (ST) II-II, q. 64, a. 7 (DH.7). By analyzing DH.7, the author suggests it is not about DDE but about distinguishing between instrumental harm for self-preservation and harm as a primary goal (such as punishment). The author further argues that other passages in the ST support a restrictive DDE, specifically through the concept of "closeness," where a side effect is evaluated as intended if its connection to the action is sufficiently close. This restrictive view implies that definite foresight of a negative consequence may disqualify the moral soundness of an action, contrasting with modern permissive interpretations.

The document provides a comprehensive review of modern Just War theory, analyzing the criteria for entering war (jus ad bellum), conducting war (jus in bello), and ending war (jus post bellum). It highlights key tensions, such as the debate over humanitarian intervention, the morality of preventive war, and the 'moral equality of soldiers'—the question of whether combatants fighting an unjust war can still act justly in their conduct.