The “buy one, get one free” ethics of investing public and philanthropic funds in health and climate

Abstract

This article applies various ethical frameworks to inform decision making about investment in two specific goods—strengthening public health and stabilizing the global climate. I begin by outlining how these goods traditionally competed for common and constrained resources. I then discuss how this view of competition has been rendered more problematic by emerging and compelling ethical justifications for investment in both goods based on utilitarian, Rawlsian, and communitarian analyses. I conclude by showing that these goods no longer compete head-to-head in a zero-sum way. Changes in science, technology, and society mean that investment in either good has the potential to advance both goods—that is, the goods have become synergistic. As a result, the case for investing in both is better.