Climate change is a “perfect moral storm”, an intersection of three prominent challenges to ethical action (global, intergenerational and theoretical) that are difficult to overcome. One consequence of this is that we are likely to be attracted to weak or deceptive arguments that appear on the surface to license such behavior, and so to give such arguments less scrutiny that we ought. A particularly deep way of doing this is through the corruption of the very terms of the debate, moral and otherwise. Hence, we must beware of arguments that work to subvert our understanding of what is at stake.

Unfortunately, addressing corruption of the understanding is not easy. Not only are the motivational forces that support it powerful, but in its most sophisticated forms it seeks to co-opt important values (such as moral and epistemic values) that otherwise ought to be respected. This is part of the genius of such corruption, and combating it requires serious effort. Fortunately, we are broadly familiar with the phenomenon. In this paper, I try to illustrate it by comparing some of the recent debate about climate policy with a classic reconstruction of morally corrupt reasoning put forward by Jane Austen. My main aim is to point out the strong resemblances between Austen’s story and our own. If we accept that Austen’s case is one of moral corruption – and it is, after all, designed to be such – then these resemblances should give us pause. Morally serious agents would not want to be portrayed as Austen portrays her subjects.