Suchergebnisse

This paper concentrates on a particular example of cooperation between European cities and indigenous peoples of the Amazon river basin, namely that of Climate Alliance. The New Urban Agenda adopted at the UN Habitat III conference in October 2016 emphasizes that cities and other human settlements should meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities for current and future sustainable and economic inclusive development. Cities should also take measures to address climate change and protect and manage their ecosystems, water resources, the environment and biodiversity. Indigenous peoples, just like cities play a crucial role in the fight against climate change. 80 % of the territories with high biodiversity level are indigenous lands. Their indigenous ecological knowledge may serve as a valuable tool in initiatives aimed at fighting climate change. The aim of the paper is to show whether there are any benefits of such cooperation and what is its significance in the fight against climate change. The main research question is: what are the forms of cooperation between European cities and Amazonian indigenous peoples in the framework of Climate Alliance? In which way can European cities support indigenous peoples in their fight for their rights and consequently for the nature's preservation? The hypothesis is that European cities may learn from indigenous peoples of the Amazon how to combat climate change.

In this paper, I employ the method of reflective equilibrium to analyse background conditions of our considered judgements about distributive justice generated by a thought experiment called "Three Children and a Flute", proposed and interestingly commented upon by Amartya Sen in his book The Idea of Justice. I claim that, contrary to Sen's conclusions drawn from the thought experiment, for the utilitarian and egalitarian visions of distributive justice to hold other things about distribution of resources and social life that we are not willing to accept must be true and that it is not the case then that it is a 'difficult decision' to make what pattern of distribution should prevail in the thought experiment. To boot, I hold that libertarian or natural pattern of distribution does not presuppose these background conditions that we are not willing to accept and which are presupposed by egalitarian and utilitarian distributive patterns. I conclude that taking into consideration the fact that there is a plethora of inconsistencies, counter-intuitive consequences and anti-scientific implications of the utilitarian and egalitarian solutions to the thought experiment, it is a natural pattern of distribution that prevails in the 'flute dilemma'.