Murder in the Climate Assembly is a fusion of campus novel, moral philosophy and a whodunnit set in a citizen’s assembly on climate. The main narrative follows Iris Tate as she starts a new job as professor of moral philosophy in Arts and Humanities, her attempts to find simpatico colleagues and find ways to deal with her past. She is excited by a request from the Director of Public Prosecutions who needs help in resolving an ethical dilemma. The DPP must decide whether to prosecute a murder which took place in a citizens’ assembly on climate. The stakes are high. For the first time, citizens’ assemblies have been granted actual power. The media frenzy resulting from a murder would mean the end of this form of direct democracy, which many believe could be the silver bullet to avert a climate crisis. Young people versed in moral philosophy would be the ideal group to consult, but confidentiality is crucial. Iris decides to do a study on how a whodunnit can be used to illustrate ethical theories and transcribes her lectures as part of this. Philosophical concepts and ethical dilemmas are sprinkled throughout the story but are concentrated in 10 lectures. These comprise about 12% of the wordcount but include interactions with students. For example, in the ethics of democracy lecture she finds more of them voted for Love Island than voted in the election. About 15% of the wordcount is the whodunnit set in the climate assembly – the story within the story.
In the extract below, Iris has compiled a short extract from the story she is writing ‘murder in the citizens’ jury’ and a condensed version of a lecture that uses the story to illustrate ethical dilemmas. She sends these to the Director of Public Prosecutions to show how she will fictionalise the real-life case so the students can give their input into the ethical dilemmas.
Extract how philosophy lectures and whodunnit work together
Dear Robert,
The goal, as I understand it, is to find a trade-off between anonymising the key people while staying faithful to the nature of the dilemma. It could be effective – and fun for the students – to present this as a whodunnit complete with clues and red herrings. I can also make it work pedagogically. I’ve attached the first chapter and associated lecture to demonstrate.
Kind regards
Iris Tate
Professor of Moral Philosophy
p.s. Re confidentiality, how much can I tell the students?
ATTACHMENT 1
PHIL3029 CHAPTER #1 Murder in the Citizens’ Jury: Sarah
Sarah ticked off the boxes on the official form: ‘Notification of Eligibility to chair a Citizens’ Assembly’. I declare I am free from bias. I have no personal knowledge of the participants. Participants have been selected randomly to represent the general population. I am in a fit state mentally and physically to chair this citizens’ assembly. Please check off excluding criteria. Sarah ticked her way through, then paused at the last one: Loss of a partner through bereavement, divorce or similar. If she ticked yes, they’d invite her to a follow-up appraisal to test her mental state. She knew this because she’d helped to write the rules.
She could imagine the interview. ‘You split up two weeks ago.’ ‘Did you have to move?’ ‘It must be an upheaval after twelve years.’ ‘How do you feel?’ How long could she keep it together and not give away the anger, the betrayal? She could hear them now. ‘We appreciate your expertise, Sarah. The work you’ve put in to make this happen. Normally we’d let it go, but this is the first citizens’ assembly with real power. We can’t take any chances.’
The work she’d put in. Understatement. This had been her life. Her PhD had been on citizens’ juries in the US. She’d researched citizens’ assemblies in Europe. Co-chaired the Northern Ireland citizens’ assembly on same-sex marriage. Even travelled to Cuba to research their popular councils, where citizens fed back their views on proposed policies. She’d presided over numerous climate assemblies, marvelled at how, when given responsibility, people would take it seriously. Citizens from every class, ethnicity, gender, and age would gather together, and – informed by experts – would calmly deliberate upon the best solutions. Then she’d have to sit by helplessly as government after government ignored their recommendations, focused only on the coming election and their own power-mongering antics. Finally, citizens’ assemblies had been granted power, but there was that last-minute amendment to worry about. They’d learned from Brexit and included a trial period. If anything went wrong, it would all be for nothing. There was no way she’d let someone with less experience take control. Anyway, in the citizens’ jury, no-one would ask about her personal life. There’d be no triggers, so it wasn’t even relevant.
She ticked no and signed the form.
ATTACHMENT 2
Lecture 1 Kant and universal moral duty
Later we’ll be debating whether murder can ever be ethical, but before we raise the stakes so high, let’s warm up our moral muscle on a lesser infringement of the rules. Was it right or wrong for Sarah to lie on the form? Can we even talk about right or wrong or is it all relative? We’ll cover this in a later session. Does it matter? Yes. Societies with the highest level of trust, ethics and law-abiding behaviour are the most successful. So, a key concept among moral philosophers is the idea of ‘the common good’. A well-known philosopher in this tradition is the 18th-century German thinker Immanuel Kant.
He proposed there are universal duties we should abide by derived from basic principles. For example, we have a duty to behave ethically, to be honest, truthful, and so on. Kant also emphasises consistent moral standards. For example, it would be inconsistent to approve of publicly funded services and at the same time evade taxes. And he has a point. Pretty well everything good in society comes from honest people paying their dues. Similarly, it would be irrational to enjoy living in a safe society where rights to life and property are respected, yet break the law ourselves.
This kind of thinking gave rise to his most famous principle, the Categorical Imperative: ‘Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ In other words, we shouldn’t take any action that we wouldn’t want others, faced with a similar situation, to take. A rule of thumb is to ask ourselves: what if everyone behaved that way?
Your first assignment is to answer the question: What would Kant have to say about Sarah’s decision to lie on the form?
