The Stern-Nordhaus controversy has been emblematic of the economic and ethical debate around the formulation of a discount rate and a carbon price. The aim of this article is to study this controversy in order to shed light on the epistemological and ethical postulates implicitly accepted by the two economists in their work, and more broadly in the integrated models concluding to a social cost of carbon. These implicitly accepted postulates are 1) the comprehension of economic rationality solely as the maximization of expected utility, and 2) a consequentialist point of view. The latter compartmentalize the scope of the ethical debate into cleavages over the formulation of an optimal discount rate. This article aims to broaden the ethical debate around these integrated models by questioning the implicit normativity of how economic rationality is at play in these models and proposes a new way of conceiving individual responsibility in regard to climate change.