SMU – PHIL 3379 – ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS – FALL 2023 – JEAN KAZEZ – eesmu.blogspot.com

Friday, August 25, 2023

MODULE 1: Future People

 AGENDA

  1. RR3--please read your comments and reply if I asked you to
  2. Our next question about the moral community: future people
  3. MacAskill, step by step



William MacAskill, What We Owe the Future

  • Who is he?
  • Effective altruism movement
  • What's his question?

When we make decisions affecting the environment today, who should we be focused on?

  1. just people who exist now (so up to about 2125)
  2. people who exist now plus some future people*--maybe just a few more generations (so up to about 2200)
  3. people who exist now plus all future people (no time limit)

*Future people = people who don't exist yet

MacAskill's answer is 3.  
Longtermism = the view that our policies today should take into account people in the far future


Q1: Does a future person count?  (p. 10)

The Broken Glass Argument (p. 10)

  1. Suppose a child will step on the glass I shattered on a trail.
  2. I should clean it up whether the child will step on it "in a week, a decade, a century" (p.10) or a thousand years.  THEREFORE,
  3. Future people count.

Rescue of 8 people
in Pakistan
The Imagining Future People Argument (p. 10)

  • "...they look down at their hands; they look around at their lives. What is different? What is less real?"" (MacAskill, p. 10)
The time/distance argument (p. 10)

  1. People who are spatially distant count. 
  2. Time is like space. THEREFORE,
  3. People who are temporally distant count.
A1: Yes




Q2: Should we care equally about a future person? (p. 11)

  • Partiality--"It's common sense that you can and should give extra weight to your near and dear." (p. 11)
  • Reciprocity--"...future people don't benefit you the way others in your generation do." (p. 11)

"I'm not claiming that the interests of present and future people should always and everywhere be given equal weight. I'm just claiming that future people matter significantly." (p. 11)

A2:  No, but significantly



Q3: How much concern should we have for the totality of future people?


It would take 20,000 pages like the
one below to represent all future people
(making certain assumptions)


A3: Because they are so numerous, a ton of concern




Q4: What should we do for future people?

Deal with climate change

Not JUST deal with climate change (read rest of book)



Q5: Is MacAskill a Utilitarian?

Utilitarianism: the ethical view that says our actions and policies should always maximize total happiness, with each individual affected given equal consideration

Next time we'll discuss 




Next week: animals