As a philosophy major I am quite familiar with Kant and Mill and they are both tools. Now advocates of global warming theories contend they are at war with the skeptics and cite Kant and Mill for support. Talk about tools. Geez.
Kant said that when judging the morality of an act, we must weigh the intentions of the actor. Was he acting selfishly, to benefit himself, or selflessly, to help others? By this criterion, Gleick’s lie was clearly moral, because he was defending a cause that he passionately views as righteous. Gleick, you might say, is a hero comparable to Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who in 1971 stole and released documents that revealed that U.S. officials lied to justify the war in Vietnam.
But another philosopher my students and I are reading, the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, said that judging acts according to intentions is not enough. We also have to look at consequences. And if Gleick’s deception has any consequences, they will probably be harmful. His exposure of the Heartland Institute’s plans, far from convincing skeptics to reconsider their position, will probably just confirm their suspicions about environmentalists. Even if Gleick’s lie was morally right, it was strategically wrong.
I’ll give the last word to one of my students. The Gleick incident, he said, shows that the “debate” over global warming is not really a debate any more. It’s a war, and when people are waging war, they always lie for their cause.
This guy is a bigger tool than Kant or Mill and that's quite a feat.
Should Global Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?
The answer is yes according to this guy. Michael Mann, the authors of the IPCC and the folks in the CRU at East Anglia University agree.
Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!
James L. Salmon, Esq.
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV
Collaborative Construction Website
Sustainable Land Development International