future people have no standing at all
This can be found in the Hebrew writings of the Pentateuch: the idea that what we’re doing now is not for our own benefit, but is setting up a world for our descendants to enjoy. The problem the Hebrew people encountered was that we’re not willing to suffer for the sake of someone else when those subsequent generations feel no gratitude toward us for setting the groundwork.
So it’s not only important to value the potential of future life, but to also value the endurance of the past, and the lessons learned the hard way. By the same token, it’s not just about those who may judge us in the future, but also about those from the past who may judge how we have squandered, trivialised or overlooked their efforts to get us where we are.
It is counter-intuitive, but the statement is true both figuratively and literally, at least on the basis that no such people exist. On those grounds I don’t think the moral case for anti-natalism has any merit because it doesn’t deal with real people.
But when it comes to preserving the environment, it isn’t about one future person, but generations of them, to “posterity”, many of them born the moment I write this. So in a way, “posterity” exists and we can point out the countless pregnant and newborn people now existing in order to make it more concrete. For these “future people”, there must be some consideration of their future, at least to guide our actions in the present. — NOS4A2
With other common moral theories, it seems to me that you could interpret things any way you like with respect to future people. For example, if you're a utilitarian, you could interpret any stance about the moral weight or lack of the same of future people as being or not being a benefit to people in general. — Terrapin Station
My advice would be to read Albert Schweitzer’s Ethical vision. Generationism is highly influenced by his works and the empirical findings within Moral Psychology. — Mark Dennis
I'd like to use the claim that "future people have no standing at all" as a baseline for discussion and ask for your opinions and reasons as to why this statement is correct of false, given the system of moral philosophy you ascribe to. — Echarmion
So, I'd like to use the claim that "future people have no standing at all" as a baseline for discussion and ask for your opinions and reasons as to why this statement is correct of false, given the system of moral philosophy you ascribe to.
With that said, what are your thoughts? — Echarmion
If you can interpret things any way you like, that would imply that you know nothing, i.e. that you system simply offers no solution to the question. Which is a flaw if you wish to base your behavior on that system. — Echarmion
Can we not then, on the same temporal grounds, rationally generalize from this moral (i.e. intrinsic benefit of harm / helplessness avoidance & reduction absent, or independent of, extrinsic benefits (i.e. reciprocality (e.g. quo pro quo)) concern for our future selves [FuS] to moral concern for (our) future populations [FuPop]? — 180 Proof
I'd start from the opposite assumption, that future people have as much standing as currently existing people, in theory at least. Because if you would know with certainty that you acting a certain way now will kill a person 100 years from now, that person will have been as real as people living now. — ChatteringMonkey
I submit that we all act in consideration of future people all the time: our future selves. I keep going to work and doing other difficult adult things instead of goofing off enjoying myself all the time so that a future version of me who doesn’t exist yet won’t suffer.
I don’t think considerations of other future property are much different. Just a combination of that and a more general concern for other people at all. — Pfhorrest
The question as to the "ethical standing" of future people, or of any duty owed to them, isn't really one of existence, but rather of the freedom to make a right choice in regard of it. Freedom as the ability to accomplish one's duties and obligations - isn't freedom something we're condemned to? The issue whether to do a good job of it or muck it up. — tim wood
There's no way to ever get to a(n objective) fact that amounts to a valuation or prescriptive normative of any sort. — Terrapin Station
There's no way to ever get to a(n objective) fact that amounts to a valuation or prescriptive normative of any sort.
Now, descriptive moral relativism which looks into moral demographic makeups of a nation, culture or religion is at least a bit more insightful. — Mark Dennis
It allows me to resolve moral relativism (which as a substantive expression I think bankrupt, and those who argue it engaged ultimately in fraud) into a particular framework in which to organize data, but not the thing itself.
Nevertheless, moral philosophers have tried to establish systems for deciding how to act. I, personally, like to consider such systematic approaches. — Echarmion
Sure, but what do you take to be an example of a system that would tell you even whether to murder someone else without it being a case where really you could interpret the system to recommend either a positive or negative answer?
The only way around that is to simply specify "Do not murder others" and so on, but you're not going to be able to specify every possible scenario. — Terrapin Station
If we anthropologically state that humans use ethics and moral values for the biologically driven purpose — Mark Dennis
what an outlandish interpretation of law. It’s pretty much a given that the law attempts to make moral arguments and claims, but it also seeks to be challenged on its ever changing stance toward what is and isn’t morally acceptable. To describe the law as a concept that says “everything is allowed but for some reason we’ve decided you can’t do this stuff even though it’s allowed.” Every law has a moral implication behind it, whether the implication is right or not is for ethics and metaethics to decide in the long run. Just a pity it’s such a slow process.In other words, a moral system in which everything is morally permissible unless we specify that it's morally prohibited?
what an outlandish interpretation of law. — Mark Dennis
Are you suggesting a purpose that might not be consciously present in individual humans, or are you saying that contingently, due to biology, that purpose is consciously present in all individual humans?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.