Please Address Each Item Below For Each Movie: 1. Briefly Su ✓ Solved

Please address each item below for each movie: 1. Briefly su

Please address each item below for each movie: 1. Briefly summarize the basic plot or issue the movie addresses. 2. What is the most interesting point in the movie? 3. What is the most controversial statement you’ve heard? 4. What is the most important ethical issue the movie addresses? Please explain. Has the 'Go Green' environmental sustainability movement changed your daily life? If so, in what way and why? Would any of the ethical theories discussed in the course (profit maximization, utilitarianism, universalism) explain your actions or lack of action?

Paper For Above Instructions

Movie Selected

The responses below address the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" (directed by Davis Guggenheim, featuring Al Gore) as the chosen movie for analysis. The film presents scientific evidence, visualizations, and policy arguments about anthropogenic climate change and its consequences (Guggenheim, 2006).

1. Brief summary of basic plot or issue

"An Inconvenient Truth" combines a lecture-style presentation by Al Gore with documentary footage to summarize the scientific consensus on global warming, illustrate observed and projected impacts (sea-level rise, extreme weather, species loss), and argue for rapid societal and policy changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Gore, 2006). The film traces historical climate data, explains feedback loops like ice-albedo effects, and emphasizes political inertia and misinformation as obstacles to mitigation. Its central issue is the ethical and practical imperative to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint to avoid catastrophic ecological and social harms (IPCC, 2014).

2. Most interesting point in the movie

The most interesting point is the film’s clear linking of long-term scientific data with everyday visualizations—such as time-lapse glaciers and animated projections of sea-level rise—to make complex climate dynamics comprehensible and urgent. This synthesis transforms abstract data into concrete potential futures for cities and ecosystems, showing how incremental temperature increases produce non-linear, systemic impacts (Stern, 2006). The effective communication strategy is a notable demonstration of how scientific information can be framed to motivate public engagement (Nisbet, 2009).

3. Most controversial statement heard

The film’s implication that affluent societies and major corporations bear disproportionate responsibility for emissions, and thus have a stronger moral duty to lead mitigation efforts, provoked controversy. Critics argued that such claims could be politically polarizing and politically weaponized (Friedman, 1970; Lomborg, 2001). The contention that immediate governmental action and policy intervention are ethically necessary challenges free-market defenders who prioritize profit maximization and minimal regulation (Friedman, 1970).

4. Most important ethical issue addressed

The central ethical issue is intergenerational justice: present-day decisions about emissions will determine whether future generations inherit a stable climate and functioning ecosystems. This raises questions of responsibility, rights, and distributive justice—who must bear mitigation costs and who will bear climate harms (Rawls, 1971; Singer, 1972). The film frames climate change as an ethical problem because the actions of current actors produce foreseeable harms to others (including non-human life) who have no say in those decisions (IPCC, 2014; Stern, 2006).

Has the "Go Green" environmental sustainability movement changed daily life?

Yes. Since viewing the film and engaging with sustainability literature, I have adjusted shopping, waste, and transportation practices: reducing single-use plastics, prioritizing products with minimal packaging, using public transit and cycling when feasible, and minimizing food waste by meal planning (Ajzen, 1991; Dietz et al., 2009). These changes are motivated by both practical concerns (cost savings, convenience) and ethical concerns about reducing my carbon footprint and consumption-driven harm to ecosystems and vulnerable communities (UN, 2015).

Why I do these things

The behavioral shift is driven by a combination of increased awareness and perceived efficacy. Understanding the mechanisms and projected impacts (Gore, 2006; IPCC, 2014) produces moral motivation, while accessible actions (recycling, efficient commuting) provide avenues for tangible contributions. Social norms and institutional supports—availability of recycling, bike lanes, and public transit—further enable sustained behavior change (Ajzen, 1991; Cialdini, 2003).

Do ethical theories (profit maximization, utilitarianism, universalism) explain my actions?

Several ethical frameworks partially explain my choices:

• Utilitarianism: This framework prioritizes actions that maximize overall well-being. Reducing waste and emissions can be justified as minimizing aggregate harm (Singer, 1972). The utilitarian logic supports mitigation when the expected net benefits (reduced harms to health, property, ecosystems) outweigh individual costs (Stern, 2006).
• Universalism/Kantian ethics: Kantian universalism emphasizes acting according to maxims that can be willed as universal laws. Choosing sustainable behaviors respects a duty not to treat the environment and future people merely as means to present consumption; it aligns with duty-based ethics that value respect for persons across time (Kant, 1785; Rawls, 1971).
• Profit maximization (shareholder primacy): This theory emphasizes maximizing financial returns and would not, in itself, explain my personal pro-environmental actions unless those actions coincide with financial benefit (Friedman, 1970). While some green choices reduce costs (energy efficiency), many are taken despite modest or delayed financial returns, so profit maximization is an incomplete explanation for my motivations.

Overall, my behavior is best explained by a mix of utilitarian concerns (minimizing harm) and universalist duties (obligations to future persons), with practical incentives and social norms shaping actual practice (Ajzen, 1991; Dietz et al., 2009).

Conclusion

"An Inconvenient Truth" functions as both a scientific briefing and an ethical call to action, focusing attention on intergenerational justice, collective responsibility, and the need for policy and personal changes. The Go Green movement has influenced daily habits by translating ethical concerns into actionable behaviors. Ethical frameworks help explain these responses: utilitarianism and universalism provide strong moral rationales for mitigation, while profit maximization explains some, but not all, behavior. Effective climate action will require aligning moral arguments, economic incentives, and social infrastructures so individual ethical choices become easier and more widespread (Stern, 2006; IPCC, 2014).

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109.
• Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Gore, A. (2006). An Inconvenient Truth [Film]. Paramount Classics; Guggenheim, D. (Director).
• IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• Kant, I. (1785/1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
• Lomborg, B. (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, United Kingdom.
• Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3), 229–243.
• United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.