<p>Equitable mitigation to limit warming to 2 ^∘C has been central to international climate negotiations and global action. Approximately half of the mitigation pathways in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report use Cost-Benefit Integrated Assessment Models (CB-IAMs). These pathways are sensitive to normative assumptions ingrained in CB-IAMs and have been criticized for unfairly burdening developing nations. Here, we show that making normative assumptions explicit, separating conflicting policy objectives, and employing adaptive policies can substantially alter the prescribed global mitigation pathways and the underlying distribution of mitigation burdens. Our findings demonstrate that justice framing is pivotal. A Utilitarian framing (maximizing global welfare) results in less ambitious mitigation, exceeding 2 ^∘C warming and unjustly distributing responsibilities. In contrast, a Prioritarian framing (prioritizing the worst-off) prescribes pathways that meet the Paris Agreement goals and ensure equitable distribution of mitigation responsibility. Our approach integrates diverse ethical perspectives, facilitating informed deliberation and enabling stakeholders to reach a negotiated compromise.</p>