Catastrophe Ethics: How to Choose Well in a World of Tough Choices

by Travis Rieder

A warm, personal guide to building a strong ethical and moral compass in the midst of today's confusing, scary global problems

The moral challenges of today are unfamiliar in the history of philosophy. Climate change is the paradigm example of what Travis Rieder calls “The Puzzle”: How do you make your everyday choices fit with what the planet urgently needs? How do we decide the right thing to do in the face of a massive collective challenge? Should you drink water from a plastic bottle or not? Drive a Tesla? Or is that just what Elon Musk and all the other corporations want you to think? What makes individual ethics difficult to think about in the case of catastrophic climate change makes ethics difficult to think about in many other contexts as well. The Puzzle, as Rieder explains, is everywhere now.

The chapters in this book include a lively, meaningful tour of traditional moral reasoning looking at the contributions of Plato, Hegel, and Kant, among others. But they could not grasp the Puzzle we now face. Old-fashioned exercises, like trolley problems involving sacrificing one person on this track for a bunch of people on the other, don't address the huge, consequential, and complex crises our global community faces today. The tools most of us unthinkingly rely on when we try to “do the right thing” don’t help when it comes to reasoning about individual responsibility for large collective problems.

Expanding our suite of ethical concepts is now urgently required. Rieder defines exactly how to change our thinking, addressing mundane issues like bottled water and life-changing decisions like whether to have children. This is a way to live a morally decent life in our scary, always complicated world. It’s how to build your own catastrophe ethics.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology, Science, Politics, Climate Change, Audiobook

336 pages, Hardcover

Published March 5, 2024

About the author

Travis Rieder was born and raised in Indiana, after which he has slowly and steadily moved eastward. After completing his BA at Hanover College in southern Indiana, he moved to South Carolina to do an MA in philosophy. He then did a PhD in philosophy at Georgetown University before taking a faculty position at Johns Hopkins, where he currently teaches.

Travis’s writing is wide-ranging, but took a sharp turn in 2015 after a motorcycle accident and a traumatic experience with pain and pain management that resulted. Since that experience, he has worked to turn his intimate struggle with opioid painkillers into a research program and a mission to reduce harm from irresponsible prescribing. IN PAIN, published by HarperCollins in June 2019, combines his personal story with fascinating and disturbing facts about the history of pain and opioid use, the American healthcare system, and suggestions for how the tide can be turned on the interlocking epidemics of pain, opioids, and addiction.

Reviews

[Deedi Brown (DeediReads) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Catastrophe Ethics is pitched as “a warm, personal guide to building a strong ethical and moral compass in the midst of today's confusing, scary global problems.” As someone who often agonizes over decisions like whether it’s okay to throw away an old, unusable comforter because it’s just so hard to find a way to ethically recycle it, this book was calling my name. And even though it kind of answers that question and kind of doesn’t, I found it to be very helpful and clarifying.

I would only recommend this book to someone who has never studied ethics. I get the sense that if you took even an introductory class on ethics in college, a lot of this might feel basic. But for me, I enjoyed and deeply appreciated the tour Rieder gives us through modern moral reasoning, laying a foundation and building layers on top of it like all good teachers do. He uses both big and small, timely questions to put that reasoning to the test — from recycling to abortion to activism to whether to have kids. Because he’s so clear and engaging, the book also works very well on audio.

Even though there are no clear answers that apply to everybody, I feel genuinely better prepared to decide what kinds of things are personally worth my effort (and my guilt). The time I spent listening to this audiobook was time extremely well spent.

[BAM who is Beth Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I devoured this book like it was written specifically for me. Maybe it’s an “intro” to ethics, which other reviewers complained about, but that’s okay with me. I’m not a professional. I’m just a regular gal trying to make some sense of my own moral compass and the dilemmas that come with today’s world. This book was fascinating to me in that it spoke so directly to any of the things I think about on a regular basis, climate change, veganism, recycling, racism and white privledge, even the belief in God (or lack thereof). I found this to be easy to digest, entirely readable and extremely thought provoking.

Did Riedee give me all the answers? Well no, but that’s not what he set out to do. What he did was help layout some sound ideas to help me come to my own conclusions.

Kudos.

[Ian · Rating 1 out of 5]

15% in, just over an hour and I can’t take it. Not what the blurb promises. This appears to be much less a book about trying to make better choices when all have their down side, than it is to talk down to the reader and gaslighting. My ethics say to stop and find other stimulating reading materials that aren’t a sadomasochistic exercise to finish or learn something with real benefits to my wellbeing and that of those around me so that maybe we can solve the worlds ills or at least actually try

[John Stokes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic read. A crash course in philosophy tied to an in depth discussion of “any problem that is properly described as structural, but about which we tend to moralize for individuals.” Moral discussions of climate change, abortion, having a child, systemic racism, and more.

[Lowarn Gutierrez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Enjoyable to read and interesting, as a sort of simple introduction to a few schools of philosophical thought within the context of living ethically in the modern world.

The reason I rate it as low as I do is because I don't think it really does what it seems to want to do, for the most part - what is proposed as the book's thesis in the blurb and title only really fills Part 4. I doubt that it was deliberately misleading, but it did mean that I spent a lot of the book wondering where it was going, because of course a lot of ethics (as a branch of philosophy) is talking in circles and trying to figure out what point of view holds the most water. While I found that interesting enough, it wasn't what I expected - which could be on me, I suppose, since I didn't look into the book when I bought it and was going off what I could read about it on the cover.

I think this is a decent book in itself, but it didn't introduce me to any perspectives that I found especially new or exciting.

[Jan Bloxham · Rating 3 out of 5]

Beginner-Intermediate level.

[Iona McLaggan-Lane · Rating 5 out of 5]

A broad range of perspectives and ways of thinking and good food for thought. Great introduction Ethics and why it's not simple

[Stacey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading one of Travis's books is always a delight for me. Firstly: I get the chance to read something interesting, thought provoking, & challenging. Then I get the bonus to say, "I know that guy!" And also: I get to listen to a great audiobook during my commute and having what /kind/ of feels like a conversation with that old friend. Weird, I know (especially given the 'joy guzzling' being a common phrase), but here we are. My brain feels satisfactorily stretched and this book was incredibly relatable and easy to understand. (Always a trepidation when approaching nonfiction about morals/ethics/philosophy etc.) An excellent read, especially if you find yourself facing challenging questions as the effects of decisions made generations before us are playing out. What should we do going forward to mitigate the ripples that we send out into the world with every decision we make?

[Mari Garza · Rating 4 out of 5]

read this for my class with Travis and really did enjoy it. he does a really good job (in class and in the book) of "dumbing down" philosophy for those who are not as proficient in it (me) to understand and follow. i think catastrophe ethics raises a lot of relevant and very important points!

[Kayla Oswald · Rating 3 out of 5]

This author does a great job explaining large impact issues through philosophical lenses. And also he doesn’t tell readers they aren’t doing enough!! Great read for when you’re feeling hopeless about the world

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book became fairly disappointing fairly early, contra the hopes I had from the title. In fact, reading backward, in a sense, at the end of the book, I realized the title itself was highly problematic. Let’s start there.

One BIG problem? Nuclear weaponry is never discussed. Even atomic energy gets only mention in passing under climate change. And, the dirtiness of cobalt mining for batteries is discussed later; that of uranium mining is not. Beyond nuclear issues, looking at the weapons side, militarism in general is not discussed, other than a passing reference to threats to Ukrainian power plants by Russia. (Dimona, and the possibility of an Iranian missile hitting it, are not.) Nor, even though we are emerging from a global pandemic and the author is a bioethicist, are pandemic catastrophe ethics discussed in detail. Drug addiction problems are touched on, scatteringly, throughout the book; the war on drugs and related issues are not. I just thought of this at the last chapter of the book, but realized that itself would probably knock it down a star.

And, that relates directly to the book’s title. And, since this is a book of matters philosophical, we’re going to get into linguistic philosophy. What IS a “catastrophe” to Rieder? We’re never given a clear definition, let alone a justification that one would expect to accompany such a definition. Another “missing example”? He talks about consumption behind climate change but never thinks about possibly including current capitalism in general as a catastrophe. Related? The ethics of the developing world wanting to live like the developed world and how that might affect climate change aren't discussed.

Now, Rieder might argue back that the book isn't intended to be comprehensive. If so, theoretically, he still owes an explainer on why he chose the particular catastrophes he did as illustrative.

Chapter 2? The big problem is scientific. Most scientists who are honest climate scientists and not neoliberals say that the degree of temperature change by 2100 will be at least 3C if not more. (Michael Mann is in Rieder’s bibliography but James Hansen is NOT. I have written about this in various ways, including some of the recent study in general and about Hansen vs Mann (and Katharine Hayhoe).) Second problem is this is the first, but by no means the last place where he takes individual actions out of collective context. The “joyguzzler” inspires others; the philosophical argument that it’s not problematic becomes weaponized. And, minor harm is not the same as zero harm. And, here, as in chapter 9, there’s a self-conflict over not discussing virtue ethics more here, let alone going beyond the West in a search for philosophical ethics. He finally gets to this, on virtue ethics, in Chapter 11, but that then means we have poor writing and editing; this isn’t a murder mystery where head-faking is not only acceptable but encouraged. It’s logical argumentation. There’s another problem behind that, even more the case in Chapter 12 than in Chapter 11.

Chapter 3’s thoughts on public health did not follow from Chapter 2 on climate change or Chapter 3 on meat. The three have different ethical angles. There is no public health equivalent of “big polluter them” nor an equivalent of big ag’s stranded/marginal costs on factory farming.

Chapter 4 gets us on the beam of good philosophizing. For a chapter.

Chapter 5 is hit and miss. Rieder kind of pulls punches on the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, the horn of ethics existing outside of god. So, by not philosophizing about how that, in and of itself, is as wrong as the first horn, the larger picture is a bit short, because the left hand is Kantianism, to put that in more modern terms — command theory without the divine. He also misstates why the post-Peloponnesian War Athens put Socrates on trial. In blunt modern terms, Socrates was a traitor.

Chapter 6 nails “the myth of tolerance.”

Chapter 7: Contra Rosalind Hursthouse, with Rieder missing this? Her definition of virtue ethics by identifying virtuous people is circular. Otherwise, he comes down correctly that trolley problems are as much ethical trick as ethical reality. (And, this is why the r/philosophy subreddit is nutters.)

Chapter 8. Problems with Singer? First is the assumption that happiness is the maximum good, or even, in more stark presentations of Singer, the only good. Second, what is happiness? And, is the hedonistic calculus for measuring that calibrated to the moment? A short term after the moment? A longer term after the moment? I mean, if momentary, then Huxley’s Fordist government passing out soma is the height of good ethics. Doesn’t delve into the “nowhen” issue that parallels the “nowhere,” as in utilitarians cannot have a view from either nowhere or nowhen.

Part III

Chapter 9 His attempt to differentiate between “statistical harm” and “actual harm” seems cavilling. We use insurance actuarial tables to talk about harms all the time and nobody bifurcates them this way. To make this VERY personal given Rieder’s past, insurance actuarial tables will talk about the “statistical harms” caused by driving a motor vehicle while stoned on opioids. To go beyond that to physics? Statistical mechanics is exactly that. Doesn’t make it any less real. And, perhaps with protesting, we as a society accept actuarial norms — until, to riff back to climate change, “we” get bent out of shape when we’re in rural California or the Florida coast and our homeowner’s insurance skyrockets, if it gets renewed at all. Next, he seems to ignore virtue ethics on this issue, looking only at consequentialist and deontological stances. This seems a HUGE fail, and, unlike friend Massimo Pigliucci, I’m not in general a touter of virtue ethics. It’s weirder yet because his farmer friends in Chapter 11 are walking, talking virtue ethicists. Also, Walter Kaufmann, or thoughts similar to “Without Guilt and Justice,” are missing on other angles of individual vs collective justice. See here for a few thoughts on that book.

Chapter 10: Sex is not gender. So says me. So said the late Frans de Waal. So says biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci. Outside of evolutionary biologists, so say some political leftists. This is also, in this case, a linguistic philosophy issue. As a public policy issue, that doesn't mean that both transsexual and transgender persons don't have certain civil rights. Whether they are 100 percent the same in 100 percent of issues? That semi-rhetorical question will suffice within this review.

On duty, obligation and intimacy, his riff on Maggie Little misses another point. We seemingly evolved biologically to be in maximum group sizes of 150. In the modern world, which is “controlling” on my “sphere of intimacy” — biological or cultural evolution? And, his use of Little misses that ensoulment personhood will simply reject this framing a priori. That’s not to say it’s wrong. It is to say that it relies on presuppositions that some would say are not in evidence. Third, claiming Little’s POV on abortion is “complex” medically or ethically is a reach, and it’s also PR, trying to “sell” this precisely because of alleged complexity, as I see it.

Next: No, “reasons” are not a small-granular unit of moral measurement. They MAY be, when purely moral, and later you seem to go back to that, but? You just admitted that reasons often have no moral attachment. There may be plenty of aesthetic good to getting fresh coffee; there is ZERO moral good unless I have some weird disease requiring coffee ingestion.

I agree with him on rejecting duty and obligation on many cases, at least within INDIVIDUALIST ethics. That, too, as well as rejecting Rawlsian liberal versions of political ethics, is something I learned from Kaufmann’s “Without Guilt and Justice.” See more below.

And, by this point, I realized I was sorry I recommended this book to Massimo Pigliucci and that, while it might not fall below three stars, it was quite unlikely to rise above it.

Chapter 11: Uses a farming husband and wife, neo-traditionalist farmers, as a “hook” for turning us back to virtue ethics and an intro to the next part. Not bad, but not failing to talk about the hook in advance is bad non-fiction writing. Also, re the purity ethic in Chapter 12? Are there issues with neo-traditionalist farming that he doesn’t discuss? As in, it’s an “out”? As in, the modern world couldn’t exist with only neo-traditionalist farms? As in, where do all of their customers get their money to pay its higher prices? To put it more bluntly, does this, like planting trees as alleged carbon offsets, act as a sort of environmental penance that doesn’t really do anything?

PART IV — finally, after bad editing in Chapter 2 and failing to put a “hook” in either it or Chapter 8 to point forward to Chapter 11.

Chapter 12: Problems with the purity ethic and its similarity to utilitarianism are good. But, there’s a larger problem that Rieder misses, and that’s a problem with **Western** philosophy. Confucianism, for example, has no problem talking about things that would be best called, in the taxonomy of Western ethics, “corporate duty” and “corporate obligation.” Virtue ethics to battle climate change just doesn’t get there. It doesn’t get there on other things. By not looking beyond the Western tradition, in essence, Reider is hamstrung. Also, by looking at duty and obligation as an on/off switch, rather than in terms of degrees, he's further hamstrung.

Let us not forget that the Western world did NOT “invent” philosophy. India’s Charvaka skeptics, for example, existed by or before the Greek pre-Socratics. The Ajnana started about the same time.

Chapter 13: I think it’s too harsh to call Schopenhauer a cynic for his “antinatalist” views. Ditto on David Benatar, whom I’ve also read. Also, to riff on Schopenhauer and Benatar, there’s the question of whether one should stop with one child, whether one’s own progeny or adopted, or go on to a second once that bridge has been crossed, on the grounds that only children may be less happy. Or other things. At least Rieder eventually somewhat softens his view. The only good argument against antinatalism is a selfishly utilitarian one of that it minimizes the happiness of the currently living, especially in developed countries where social safety nets for senior citizens depend in part on youth paying in.

Chapter 14: Racism is horrible. It’s arguably not a catastrophe. See top of this review for more on that issue. And, per books like “Conspirituality,” there are plenty of people who can be environmentalist but racist. Look at the German Völkish movement for 20-30 years before Hitler. Given my note at top about actual or potential catastrophes with ethical issues that Rieder doesn’t discuss, this chapter was a cropper. I’m also NOT a fan of Kendi, among listed authors of Rieder.

There’s other things not mentioned on the “participatory” issue. On political action, I assume Rieter is a good Democrat by some of his angles. I’ll venture that he even thinks third-party voters like me waste our votes on climate change. Or nuclear tensions in particular and militarism in general. He might concede this is personal purity ethics but would probably still reject it as good social participation.

[Feng Ouyang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Catastrophe Ethics: How to Choose Well in a World of Tough Choices by Travis Rieder

12/25/2025

In Catastrophe Ethics, the author introduces an innovative framework for addressing "structural problems"—complex, large-scale issues like climate change, where individual actions seem negligible yet collectively determine outcomes. The book argues that traditional ethical theories such as consequentialism and deontology fail to adequately address these challenges, as they emphasize rigid obligations and duties without room for compromise or individual context.

Analyzing Traditional Ethical Theories

The author critiques consequentialism and deontology for their inability to handle nuanced moral dilemmas. For example, while utilitarianism might demand sacrificing personal well-being for the greater good, the author argues that we are ethically justified in valuing our individual rights, such as personal happiness. This perspective is particularly compelling in issues like climate change, where the impact of personal choices, such as limiting air travel, seems negligible against the global scale of the problem.

The book uses relatable scenarios, such as decisions about having children, to highlight the limitations of universal moral doctrines. It suggests that personal values and preferences cannot be ignored, even when addressing societal challenges.

The Proposed Framework: Catastrophe Ethics

Catastrophe ethics emphasizes compromise over obligation, urging individuals to act according to their internal values rather than strict moral “duties and obligations.” While individuals are not ethically bound to make significant sacrifices for structural issues, the author stresses the importance of aligning personal actions with one's beliefs. For instance, those committed to environmental preservation might avoid excessive carbon emissions but can balance this with personal enjoyment, like vacation travel. The decision-making process, the author suggests, should be guided by a personal calculation of the cost and societal impact of different choices.

To this end, the author proposes a cost-benefit matrix as a practical tool for navigating moral dilemmas in the face of structural problems. The matrix encourages individuals to evaluate potential actions by balancing the personal costs against societal benefits. For instance, actions like reducing personal consumption, engaging in activism, or adopting environmentally friendly habits are assessed based on their feasibility and impact. The matrix recognizes that individuals have varying capacities and tolerances for sacrifice, allowing them to make choices that align with their personal values and circumstances without adhering to rigid moral absolutes. This flexible approach departs from traditional ethical frameworks of strict "duty and obligation," emphasizing that moral actions should be guided by internal values and informed compromise.

Importantly, the framework rejects nihilism. It posits a moral imperative for individuals benefiting from structural injustices—such as systemic racism or disproportionate global emissions—to actively participate in efforts to combat these issues, including social movements.

Rich Philosophical Discourse

Beyond its primary thesis, Catastrophe Ethics offers a deep dive into the evolution of ethical thought, tracing philosophical debates from ancient Greece to modern times. Through dialectical discussions and vivid examples, the book brings ethical theories to life, showcasing their complexity and relevance.

Reflection and Conclusion

While the novelty of catastrophe ethics in academic circles is uncertain, its practical implications resonate on a common-sense level. Ethical decisions, the book asserts, should be seen as compromises rather than rigid demonstrations of virtue. This principle applies not only to personal choices but also to policy debates, which often involve balancing competing interests rather than pursuing absolute moral ideals.

Catastrophe Ethics is a thought-provoking exploration of morality in the modern world. By blending philosophical rigor with practical guidance, the author offers readers a nuanced perspective on ethical dilemmas. This timely and accessible book earns a well-deserved 4-star rating for its contribution to both personal and societal ethics.

A more detailed outline is as follows.



• Part 1: Ethics Puzzle
•
o We face large-scale problems such as climate change. We can do our part to contribute to the solutions such as reducing our carbon foot print. However, our impact, whether positive or negative, is infinitesimally small. In this case, are we morally obligated to alter our behavior? Alternatively, is it more meaningful to join the advocacy movement to induce a systematic change?
o
o Another case is the COVID pandemic. Do we have the duty to follow social distance practices and get vaccine to avoid passing the disease to others and to reduce community spreading rate? How to balance personal sacrifices, which is very meaningful in this case, and the societal benefit, which seems negligible?
o
o There are many other similar ethical choices where we need to balance personal interests and societal impacts.
o
• Part 2: classical ethics theories
•
o The case of consensual incest. If the action brings no harm and risks, is it ethically OK? Answer: we should judge individual cases based on circumstances but also uphold a social norm that avoid possible harms. Lesson learned: we are often conditioned on ethical judgement by culture or upbring without thinking about the reasons behind. Philosophers like to rely on rational thinking on ethical decisions.
o
o Trap 1: relying on God as universal ethical standard.
o
 The saying goes that God makes moral standards and enforce it through heaven and hell.

 However, if you do good because you want to get God’s favor, that is not moral, that is practical.

 Also, when we say “God is good,” we have another standard for “good.” Intuitively, what God teaches us, we agree. If God says the opposite, we would not agree. That means we have an independent moral standard.

 God’s standard may be up to debate. For example, should we be a good steward of the nature and refrain from damaging it, or should we strive for human flourish and use as much natural resource as needed?

 One implication of God as ethical standard is that the standard applies to everyone. If we move away from God and adopt other ways for moral judgements, we may have individualized standards.

o Trap 2: moral relativism
o
 Moral relativism relegates moral decisions to individuals and denies any universal standard.

 However, there are clearly actions nobody would accept as moral. Therefore, there are objective standards.

 Internal contradiction: is the requirement of tolerance universal?

o Overview of classical ethics:
o
 Ethics is one of the three branches of philosophy, which tells us what we should do.

 Ethics is divided into three parts in sequence: what is ethics, how to determine ethical standards, and how to apply the standards to our actions. This book focuses on the ethical standard.

 There are two major branches for moral standard: consequentialism and deontology.

• Consequentialism judges action by its consequences. A branch of that is utilitarianism, which stipulates the criteria as maximizing happiness.
•
• Deontology focuses on the action itself. In other words, an action is right or wrong in all circumstances.
•
• In the example of the trolly dilemma, consequentialism would care about how many people are killed at the end, while deontology would question whether one can sacrifice another person’s life “for the larger good” without his consent.
•
 Another branch is virtual ethics, which argues that one behaves ethically because of his virtual, or internal guide. This is less relevant for the discussion at hand.

o Part 3: Solving the puzzle with these theories
o
 On the climate change issue, both theories cannot answer the question of why one should or should not sacrifice for an insignificant impact. The key is: it is difficult to see reducing personal carbon footprint as a “duty” when not doing so causes minimal harm or no harm at all.

 Another interesting case is the abortion debate. How to balance the right of mother and that of fetus? In addition to the value of life, it is important to introduce some new considerations

• We have a duty not to kill fellow human beings, but no duty to lend aid to sustain someone’s life, especially when this comes at a large cost to ourselves.
•
• The fetus’ rights increase gradually towards full human rights as they grow and mature. Early-stage fetus would have fewer rights.
•
• We have especially high-ranking rights to our bodies. For the pregnant women, the society cannot require them to use their bodies to sustain the fetus’ life. They have the right to chose not to continue pregnancy. However, when the fetus is sustainable outside of the woman’s body, the woman cannot stop pregnancy because that amounts to killing the infant. (The author does not discuss the alternative of inducing early labor and letting the hospital to care for the infant.)
•
 From these two cases, we see that the notion of duty and obligation greatly oversimplifies the moral issues. In many cases, we “should” do something but are not required to do that.

 An alternative is reasoning. This means we start from some moral consensus of the community and deduce what we should do in various situations. We don’t have to contemplate on every occasion but just form some rules to follow.

 The solution is adding other dimensions, especially reasoning. In many cases, we make personal choices based on our internal values and tradeoffs.

• Part 4: the Catastrophe Ethics: the new solution
•
o The case against purity: some things are bad, but absolutely not doing it is unrealistic and unreasonable. So we must seek compromises, not strive for purity.
o
 However, it is still very important to keep in mind the good and bad and use it to guide our choices.

 We can form a matrix. Towards a cause such as addressing climate change, we have several options. We can do one of them, or some of them. For each option, we have a set of choices with varying degrees of involvement and varying strength of the reasons against these actions (costs). We can then choose what choices to select and to what degree of consistency.

 The matrix is different for each person. We can do some calculations and form rules of thumb to guide our daily actions.

o Momentous ethics: deal with high-stake rare choices.
o
 The case of having children vs. adopting one: complex analyses of reasons supporting and against the propositions along many dimensions. In the end, probably a middle position (having one or few children) is the most reasonable one.

 The case of systemic racism: a structural problem as climate change. One has an infinitely small impact and thus does not have a duty and obligation to act, although one should choose an action to align this his ability and internal value. However, from another perspective, if there is a larger-scale injustice, and you are in a position to benefit from it, then it is not enough to say you do not intend to benefit. You need to join the fight to correct or compensate for the injustice. In this sense, some of us (the privileged ones) do have a duty and obligation.

• Overall: thical choices should not be black and white.
•

[Mr Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘Modern life is morally exhausting. And confusing. Everything we do seems to matter. But simultaneously, nothing we do seems to matter.’

Rieder begins his exploratory text into ethics in a familiar and recognisable manner, making it clear that being faced with a plethora of lifestyle and moral choices and decisions, we can be overloaded and be paralysed into non-action, at a time when energy is needed.

‘Catastrophe Ethics’ should not be read as a scientific book about the current and future impacts of the climate crisis. Instead, it poses challenging questions about the role of the individual in the face of a global dilemma. Participation or non-participation? To choose to be informed or not?

Rieder powerfully challenges us to explore the moral and ethical reasons behind our actions and processes and to evaluate the limitations of these. It does not shy away from stating that climate change must be addressed, but argues that we are not prepared for the morality of climate choices that lie before us.

‘We, as a global society, must address climate change. Doing so is an absolute moral requirement because it is already causing devastation, with the worst yet to come.’

To be complicit in the failed system

Early examples from the text remind the reader that we are dreadfully complicit in failed systems. We happily order from Amazon, despite being aware of working conditions. We enthusiastically watch world cups, when we are aware that the most recent host nation exploited migrant labour. We are seduced by flash and stylish car adverts, when we are aware of the impact of global emissions. We are consumers in systems that cause suffering to others- whether this applies to the latest ‘fast fashion’ company caught for labour exploitation, or food outlets which urge responsible eating, while happily taking your money for unhealthy food. Trying to extricate ourselves from these systems, or to try and rise above them, can be sometimes too much of a challenge- which links with the argument of how do we know for certain that our different ‘ethical’ paths are truly ethical at every stage of the process.

Rieder focuses then on the moral questions and moves away from the scientific certainties. He asks ‘How warm can we allow the planet to get before it causes serious, irreversible harm?’ and urges that this is
a moral question rather than a scientific one. He notes, ‘In all likelihood, the Earth will warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius in the coming decades, which means we need to ask some important, difficult questions, such as Where are we actually headed? And what will the world be like in that scenario?’

With this in mind, the focus of the book turns quickly to explore the ethical choices that individuals make and where these choices come from- the ‘motivational ethics’ as it were, which drive behaviours. Rieder openly acknowledges that there has been a shift in attention away from the actions of companies and businesses to that of the individual, but repeats that the climate crisis is a collective problem and that whether this shift is a result of ‘big business’ wanting to deflect, like BP’s famous ‘carbon footprint’, Rieder suggests that this could be seen as irrelevant. That the shift has happened isn’t as important as what we do now.
‘In recent years, it has become popular for moral philosophers and environmental activists alike to object to putting the onus on individual responsibility. Why?’

The focus on the individual intrinsically highlights that removing the individual from the ‘system’ is virtually impossible. When bloggers and the media complain about the ‘emission filled’ lifestyles of environmental activists like Greta Thunberg, they implicitly acknowledge that there is no escape from this created, reliant world.
‘After all, in modern society there is virtually no decision that is carbon-neutral. One’s work, hobbies, relationships- all are likely to increase one’s carbon footprint.’

I don’t make a difference

“I mean, I’m just one person on a planet of billions of people. Surely I can’t make a real difference, right?”

Rieder then shifts his ethical exploration into the moral obligations to act and the moral obligations to refrain from behaviours. He asks where the obligation to refrain from needlessly emitting greenhouse gases comes from? Should ‘joyguzzling’ be seen as morally reprehensible? If so, by whom and why? Should eating meat be seen as morally reprehensible and carry with it a moral duty to offset this action? If so, why?
He notes that this fascination with individual choice and freedoms lie at the heart of the problem.‘That’s why individual choice in modern times is a puzzle. It seems both to matter greatly and not to matter at all.’

When we live ‘In a world where just 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of total human emissions, it seems not only ineffective to focus on individuals but perverse.’
Rieder explores the moral argument of percentages and asks whether we really believe, ‘that a few kilograms of CO₂ will meaningfully worsen a problem that arises only when trillions of tons of GHG collect in the atmosphere.’

He reminds us that blaming the individual is part of a tried and trusted (and successful) playbook from Big Tobacco, as well as the gun lobby. He then uses other relevant and recent examples to allow us to question our moral responsibilities and where these come from.

How to respond to a global threat

It is clear that as a species, we need to ‘flatten the curve’ of greenhouse emissions. Rieder compares concerted climate action with the behaviours that we saw during the global pandemic and asks whether the ‘ground rules’ are sufficiently in place to protect us all. ‘How ought you to act in this strange new world?’ During the pandemic, we all observed the hoarders, the rule breakers, as well as those who followed the rules carefully. Our actions carried a moral responsibility to others- strangers as well as family. The main difference was that any impact, direct or indirect, played out in a matter of days, rather than decades as the climate crisis might. We were concerned when we found out that close family had caught covid. We urged protective measures for ourselves and we judged others when they acted in a manner which did not fit in with the quickly adopted ‘moral manner’. Rieder makes the point that, with this in recent memory, that our actions and lack of action (e.g. non mask wearing) could impact others, climate ethics should now be easier. ‘Covid ethics starts to sound a bit like climate ethics.’

Similar to covid, the solution to a global issue must come from the global society. ‘Climate change is a collective problem, and so it will be solved by collectives or not at all.’ Rieder finishes this section with again highlighting that the reasons behind actions are his focus and words like ‘duty’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘obligation’ all carry weight.
‘Climate change will be devastating if not addressed by the world’s powers, and so they have an obligation to fix it. What does that mean for each of us?’

What do we actually owe to each other and why?

Rieder makes no apologies for the fact that moral responsibility and accountability is complex and that ethical choices may have limitations in how ‘right’ they are. He argues, ‘The challenge of moral motivation is phenomenally difficult.’ He explores moral theory and uses the well known example of the ‘trolley scenario’- often used to rationalise moral decisions- to underpin the argument that, ‘There is a moral difference between doing and allowing harm, and so a serious moral difference between killing and letting die.’

He highlights and refers to other large systems, such as democratic voting in elections, where the actions of an individual, that is, a single vote, may not make much overall difference. He does this to explore the moral reasons for participating in a large system and urges that even with an overall insignificant impact, the participation in the system is vital. He asks us to question why this duty is so vital? Why should we participate in democracy?
Why should we vote in elections- especially when it is far easier not to?

Do we feel we owe a duty to those who fought and suffered for equal voting rights in the past? How long does this duty last- is it intergenerational? Do we vote because we feel we owe a duty to those who fought for democracy against fascism? Do we feel we owe that duty in all areas of all lives? Where does this ‘duty’ and obligation begin and end?

Rieder urges that we do so because we care. ‘As people- as moral agents- we care which actions come from us. We care about the collective efforts in which we participate.’

Everyone else is doing it

‘Catastrophe Ethics’ begins to draw to a close by not offering easy answers. Instead it challenges us to explore our own personal motivation and morality by presenting a number of different scenarios for us to contemplate and reflect on our positions. Rieder explores the morality of tax evasion and tax fraud, end of life care, our position on abortion, our religious viewpoint and the moral duty that comes from belief systems. He finishes on the well worn question of having children while the climate crisis is ongoing- an argument which often appears to ignore that babies were conceived and born during the global pandemic, during World War 2 and during countless threats in the past. Rieder notes that although, ‘We are obsessed with obligation and duty,’ we do not seem to spend too much time contemplating our personal lifestyle choices to understand why we act in certain ways, why we follow these self- imposed moral rules, and what happens when we break them.

It is difficult to read the close of the book and not think of ‘Grease 2’ and the ‘Do it for your country’ song, as one character tries to impose a sexual duty and obligation on another, by arguing a patriotic duty is owed and indeed that everyone else is doing it.

Is doing nothing a moral option?

Rieder concludes by exploring the impact of inaction and the moral duties and obligations which emerge from being passive and not participating. He powerfully argues that other large systems will not be solved by individuals, but that this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
‘Poverty, famine and disease will not be solved by me, and I might even be skeptical that my individual contribution will matter much at all when sucked up into massive multinational charitable organizations. And yet the problem feels like one I can and should address.’

Interestingly, Rieder closes with the use of the word ‘faith’. Perhaps not in a religious sense, but to link this value with accountability and integrity. We should address global problems, because we live in the world at a time when we exist to solve them.

‘It is our job to identify one of the many ways of living a good life- one that aligns with our values, preferences, and even talents and strengths- and then to live it in good faith and with integrity.’

Perhaps the words attributed to John Wesley can summarise this better:

‘Do all the good you can.
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can.’

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one is a hard one for me to review. Why? It wasn't the book that I thought it was going to be.

Now, that's as much on me as anyone else. I read some snippets and press materials, and I was drawn in by an ethical examination climate change as a catastrophe, and for what it's worth, as an emergency manager, I was anticipating a sort of spin-off of ethical considerations for climate change-exacerbated disasters as well.

But again, that's not what this book was.

That said, I didn't NOT enjoy the book; in fact, when I reoriented my headspace, I quite liked several passages. Rieder makes the reader think, and that's a strength of the book. There were passages and phrases that stuck with me for days, and I even shared a few of those in photo form (properly cited, of course!) on other social feeds. I've studied ethics at a surface level while working towards degrees, and it was refreshing to see a contemporary spin put on popular ethics debates like abortion.

I read one review on Goodreads that lambasted the final chapter of Catastrophe Ethics as overly didactic and woke, and I understand how a review like that could hit the waves, so to speak. I didn't read the last chapter as preachy, though. It was Rieder's attempt to situate a newly-coined term - "catastrophe ethics" - into a complicated, interconnected world where his Puzzle is all around us. (You can't hide if you're a climate change denier.) Like all valid (in my opinion) ethical discussions, conversants should feel a tinge of discomfort.

For me, I once read from a textbook that one of the differences between ethics and morals is that ethics are collectively-focused, while morals are more personally-focused. That's understandably reductive, but it's something I've carried with me for a few years now. That said, perhaps there was room in this book to distinguish ethics and morals more explicitly. It's there, but there are also plenty of instances where there's a murkiness caused by overlapping uses of the two constructs. Would that change my view of the value of the book? No, but it was something for which I was looking when beginning the reading.

I still want to read the book that looks at the ethical challenges surrounding disaster (or "catastrophes" as mega disasters), and I'm bummed that it wasn't between these covers. Still, I'm glad to have read this one, and I enjoyed Rieder's writing style. I'll dive back into this one again, someday, when I really want to focus more broadly on ethical thinking.

[Dylan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This entire book can be dismissed based on his subjective and idiotic usage of the concept of a "meaningful difference". His reasoning that his emissions don't make a meaningful difference is simply wrong. According to his theory firing a gun into the air for fun is perfectly acceptable so long as other people are also firing guns into the air. Sure some people might be killed by the falling bullets but we can't tell who fired the bullets that actually shot the people and there are already so many bullets in the air so it's perfectly ethical. People have a right to enjoy their lives right? Shooting guns in the air makes them happy. As long as I am personally and intentionally engaging in the things that I think are objectively good I'm perfectly justified in doing something that has obvious harms.
Contrast that with his claim that consuming movies produced by POC has clear value and will have meaningful positive impacts on the world. It simply is not logically consistent. What's worse is he wrote a whole book saying it's okay to continue emitting because everyone else is doing it and thereby propagating this harmful behavior.

[Shannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m really interested in climate change and thought this would be practical tips on living ethically in our complex world. Nope. This book is everything I hate about philosophy: he just talks in circles, never comes to any real conclusions, and doesn’t say much at all about the real world or how things are actually happening. Thought experiments can be interesting sometimes, but that’s not really how this book presents itself from the cover insert. I’m disappointed, but still giving three stars because the (small) sections on abortion, having children, and structural racism were really interesting. Two of the three have nothing to do with climate change, but were thought-provoking and entertaining.

[Rachel Vegas · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5 stars. Just compelling enough to get me to finish the book, but it ultimately fell flat. Thinks it's radical, but it's not radical enough. The author presents some moral quandaries, most of them missing important context, and then contradicts himself in order to feel better about his own life choices. One example: We ponder the morality of procreating in a suffering world when there are countless children already in need of homes and creating a new life is a massive carbon footprint. But, he's justified in his choice to have a child because his daughter felt joy from playing with her toys that one time. OKAY...

I guess I just need a more cynical book on ethics than this.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is easily one of my new favorite books on ethics and moral philosophy. Many of us are trying to live as ethically as possible, but when the world is in so much despair, it’s hard to do so. Regardless of how hard we try, we’re all contributing to climate change, we’re supporting companies with terrible labor practices, and we’re involved in systems of oppression. Travis Rieder is a philosophy professor, and he’s in the same boat as the rest of us, so he wrote this book.

The book starts off with Travis being pretty doom and gloom, and I’m just thinking, “What the hell did I get myself into.” He gets very nihilistic and gives stats and figures basically saying how our individual actions don’t really do anything when it comes to stopping climate change or the many other catastrophes in the world.

The second part of the book is when Travis starts dropping wisdom bombs left and right. He runs through the philosophies of a ton of famous philosophers like Kant, Mill, Plato, and others. Some of this is basic moral philosophy 101 that you may be familiar with, but he intertwines it with what’s going on in the world today. It really switches gears when he starts talking about how we can best do right by other people.

His overarching argument is that he believes we should practice “participatory ethics”, which are our moral obligations to one another. He knows that none of us are going to be perfectly moral or ethical, but he presents a matrix with ways of thinking so we can make better decisions to do the best we can.

I loved this book oh so much, and I hope you go read it right now.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tailed off slightly for me by the end, as a few too many discussions ended up at either (a) "our intuitions tell us that.....," which isn't a great help when people's moral intuitions vary, or (b) you can end up ethically doing X or not-X, but it's crucial to be aware/intentional/thoughtful about the tradeoffs etc. Pretty sure if I engage in air travel, buy a plastic bottle of water, etc., it has the impact it has on the climate, independent of how much I thought I gave to the competing reasons for/against doing so.

However, he's a good and occasionally funny writer, and other strengths of the book include:

(a) Stays focused on important, real problems -- he mentions trolley-problem-esque hypos by way of introducing general systems such as utilitarianism, but most of the discussion centers what he means by "catastrophes" -- climate change being the main but not sole case. Problems of massive consequence on a scale so vast that the actions of one individual can seem almost totally irrelevant, raising the question of whether it's meaningful vs. performative to emphasize this level of analysis. In a nutshell, is there any value to my composting as vs. campaigning for climate-concerned political candidates who might be able to make a real difference?

(b) Makes good use of the distinction between "duty" (you and anyone else who wants to be a good person MUST do X or not do Y) and "reasons", in effect treating most moral judgments as a continuous variable (e.g., no you're not obligated to adopt a child rather than creating another person on an overpopulated planet of finite resources, but there are plenty of reasons to consider doing so).

[Arnold · Rating 3 out of 5]

That final chapter was…odd.

This was a fairly intriguing book overall, especially for someone with a non-philosophy background such as myself. However, for as much as he infused climate change throughout the book, the final chapter was very much out of left field and seemed forced.

It comprised of a diatribe against racialized white people, a regurgitation of white privilege, white supremacy, structural racism, etc. The book would have been substantially better by ending on the previous chapter. As others would, the author (especially as a philosopher) would benefit greatly from engaging in the literature and arguments put forth by Sheena Mason, Thomas Sowell, and others as it pertains to race.

[Anni · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a little shocking to see that some people commit really edgy lifestyle to prevent the upcoming environmental and human catastrophe. I like the author's points developed from deontology with empathy of humanity, which originates from evolution but may not be perfectly beneficial to the accelerating tech and environmental changes. I am skeptical and generally worried about the prevalence of utilitarianism-oriented thoughts and movements (as well as their believer's arrogant attitudes), which always has questionable standards and dangerous trend to hierarchize systems. I am still questionable about the author's philosophy derived from deontology but I am glad that this book doesn't give its readers a definite direction about the ethical actions in today's world

[Carrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really inspiring and powerful read, that I recommend for anyone especially those just starting out in Moral Philosophy.

“The Puzzle”, as Travis Rieder calls it, is an extremely important thing to navigate in modern society. How do we be good people anymore? Is it even possible?

Even though I never had a name for it before, moral reasons guide my life. While individual impact can feel so slight, I still knew it was important to do what I felt was the right thing. This is relevant. This is how we keep going. This is how we make a community.

-

"Why not just do something easier, if you can't fix the environment?"
She smiled a little mischievously. "Because living like we do is an act of resistance."

[Tyler Tracey · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good delve into moral philosophy regarding current climate crisis by a professor that doesn't pull punches. The delivery of a lot of these nuanced topics can come off harsh, but as he says he is a realist. Although it wasn't necessarily an enjoyable experience, Rieder is consistently hamming accurate breakdowns of cultural complexes that often damn the modern individual into apathy and decision paralysis. Covers general ethic theory touching on the triad principles and how they interact with modern problems.

[Michaela]

I didn’t give this a rating because while it is well-written, I just ended up not being interested in the majority of it and ended up skimming or skipping over most parts, except the specific chapters like the question about having children. That was great!!

[Kaylee Johnson · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF at about 60%. I really wanted to like this book, but the longer I read it the more disappointed in it I became. Does not offer a solid takeaway or action item for one subject before moving on to the next.

[Samantha Loeper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Learned more from this book then I did from my ethics class

[Christian Deardorff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book. Thought provoking and introspective conversations surrounding how to live ethically in a world where all of our decisions affect the livelihood of others.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look at a new ethical model. Worth the time to read for academic interests.

[-- · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book! Gave me ways to articulate and think about why we feel/do things the way we do in ways that I hadn’t specifically considered before.

[Jackie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Makes you think!