ABSTRACT

We are concerned in this chapter with the normative criteria for the can- and fitness-conditions under which particular agents can be held morally responsible for climate change. Can- and fitness-conditions of agency relate to the discussion of whether ought implies can, which goes beyond the dichotomy between is and ought. I propose that judgements about who ought to do what belong to this group of statements because the normative and factual components of the normative judgements about who ought to what are contingent on several theoretical and methodological premises which draw on both normative and factual content. These normative judgements contain both fundamental normative principles and factual components. Together, they provide an account of fact-sensitive ought-assignments.