Summary on Chapter from Modules 05-08 philosophy

M08Lec01: Obligations to Future Generations

This lecture will help you understand: • The limits of rationality, especially

economic rationality, in answering the question about caring for posterity

• The meaning of “discounting” • The meaning of “Homo economicus” • The importance of special privileges

for preserving resources • The link between a concern for

ancestry and concern for posterity

Garrett Hardin (1915-2003)

Robert Heilbroner (1919-2005)

The Question

• Environmentalists hold that one principal reason we ought not to degrade the Earth is because we have duties to future generations. We should leave the Earth in good shape for them.

• But is this really so? • Do we have any moral obligations to future

generations? Do future people have claims against us? Why should I care about posterity? What has posterity ever done for me?

Robert Heilbroner (1919 – 2005)

• American economist and historian of economic thought.

• Heilbroner was best known for The Worldly Philosophers (1953), a survey of the lives and contributions of famous economists, notably Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes.

• “What Has Posterity Ever Done for Me?” (1975)

No Rational Answer • The question “Why should I care for posterity?” seems

to have no rational answer. – “Suppose that, as a result of using up all the world’s

resources, human life did come to an end. So what? What is so desirable about an indefinite continuation of the human species, religious conviction apart? It may well be that nearly everybody who is already here on earth would be reluctant to die, and that everybody has an instinctive fear of death. But one must not confuse this with the notion that, in any meaningful sense, generations who are yet unborn can be said to be better off if they are born than if they are not.” (Professor of political philosophy at the University of London

How Long Do We Want to Stay on the Plane?

• Imagine a supersonic transport (SST) circling the planet: – The plane started circling the planet when the earth

began and now, 4.5 billion years later, just made it once around.

– Humans got on the plane eight miles before the end of the first circumnavigation.

– Industrial humans got on six feet before the end – The earth’s sun will last for another 12 billion years

[sic], roughly enough time for the plane to make it round three more times How long do we want to stay on the plane? How long can we stay on the plane?

The End of the Earth • In roughly 5 billion years time,

our sun will eventually exhaust the supply of hydrogen in its core. The core will collapse under gravity’s pull since it has no heat to support it. Meanwhile the sun’s' outer envelope expands and it will become a red giant. At that point, its atmosphere will envelope the Earth, and our planet will be consumed in a fiery mass.

No Rational Answer

• Why do you care if humans are still on this planet in 100 years, 200 years, 1000 years? – “Why should I lift a finger to affect events that will

have no more meaning for me seventy-five years after my death than those that happened seventy- five years before I was born?”

“Tragedy” • “My inclination ... is to conclude that the

suicide of our species would be deplorable, lamentable, and a deeply moving tragedy, but that it would violate no one’s rights. Indeed if, contrary to fact, all human beings could ever agree to such a thing, that very agreement would be a symptom of our species’ biological unsuitability for survival anyway.” (Joel Feinberg)

Would it be wrong voluntarily to end the human race?

• Answers from Four Ethical Theories: – Contractualist – Religious – Deontological – Consequentialist-utilitarian

Contractualist

• The contractualist would agree with Feinberg that the act of ending the human race is regrettable, but argue that it is morally permissible. Morality arises only in contractual relations, but since we have no one with whom to make the relevant contract, no contract is possible, and so no one’s contract has been violated.

• You cannot make or break a contract with someone who does not exist!

Religious

• Note that the University of London economist qualifies his statement that there is nothing inherently bad about humanity’s coming to an end with the phrase, “religious convictions apart.” That does make a difference.

• Religions typically claim that there is a duty to continue the human race. The religious person has a duty issuing from God to perpetuate the species. – The Judeo-Christian tradition specifies a duty to be

“fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:29).

Deontologist

• Kantianism argues that respect applies to an existing rational agent.

• It is well known that Kantianism can be appealed to in support of abortion, since fetuses are not rational agents. As we have no obligations to potential people in the form of fetuses, we have no obligations to those who aren’t even conceived, who lack even biological identity.

• So a Kantian would likely allow for the end of humanity, as long as no moral principles were violated.

Utilitarian

• Utilitarians have one overriding duty--to maximize happiness. As long as the quality of life of future people promises to be positive, we have an obligation to continue human existence, to produce human beings, and to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that their quality of life is not only positive, but also high.

• It does not matter that we cannot identify these future people. We may look upon them as mere abstract placeholders for utility and aim at maximizing utility.

• If we want a theory that supports our conviction that we ought not allow the end of humanity, then we should choose either religion or consequentialism.

• If we think there are independent reasons for rejecting a religious answer, then some kind of consequentialism seems the best alternative.

Adam Smith’s “Man of Humanity”

• Imagine an earthquake in China that kills millions – How would you live your life

knowing this happened?

• Now, imagine that tomorrow you will lose your little finger – How would you live your day

knowing this will happen?

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

Human Reaction • Adam Smith thinks that the average human will be

more disturbed by the loss of one’s pinky than by the death of millions. Does this mean that the average human would prefer the loss of millions to his own little finger? No – Smith: “Human nature startles at the thought and the

world in its greatest depravity and corruption never produced such a villain as would be capable of entertaining it.”

• What prevents humans from acting in their own self- interest? – Smith thinks that a moral conscience (and sympathy)

prevents such acts of extreme self-interest

Rational Appraisal vs. Responsibility

• Smith’s thought experiment clarifies the debate – “For it is one thing to appraise matters of life and

death by the principles of rational self-interest and quite another to take responsibility for our choice.”

Heilbroner’s Hope

• “Yet I am hopeful that in the end a survivalist ethic will come to the fore–not from the reading of a few books or the passing twinge of a pious lecture but from an experience that will bring home to us, as Adam Smith brought home to his ‘man of humanity,’ the personal responsibility that defies all the homicidal promptings of reasonable calculation....I must rest my ultimate faith on the discovery by these future generations, as the ax of the executioner passes into their hands, of the transcendent importance of posterity for them.”

Garrett Hardin (1915-2003)

• American ecologist who warned of the dangers of overpopulation and whose concepts of the tragedy of the commons and lifeboat ethics will be discussed later in this course.

• “Who Cares for Posterity?” (1977)

“Here and Now”

• Ethical systems are concerned with the here and now inasmuch as most ethical decision making occurs “face to face.”

• “Why care for posterity?” is an ethical question concerned not with behavior at this moment but some distant time in the future.

?

Cost-Benefit Analysis

• Cost–benefit analysis weighs all the positive benefits against all the negative costs of an action to determine whether to proceed

• If benefits outweigh costs, then proceed.

Posterity and Cost-Benefit Analysis

• How do we measure costs and benefits in the distant future? – Are we willing to pay now for what may not be a

benefit for another 50 or even a 1000 years? – Alternatively, are we willing to receive benefits now

for something whose costs will not come due in 50 or 1000 years?

• Do today’s benefits of damming rivers for electricity outweigh the future costs, such as habitat loss, impacts on aquatic animals, and the disruption of natural rhythms of flooding that keep a river ecosystem healthy?

Weighing Present Costs against Future Benefits

• So-called “Economic Man” rationally calculates a price based on the rate of interest. Thus, if the interest rate is 6%, then paying $55.84 now will mean that your investment will be worth $100 in ten years.

• Notice here that the item’s future worth is discounted corresponding to the rate of interest.

Discounting • We calculate the present value of a future amount by

“discounting” (the opposite of compounding) . • For example, if $1 is invested at a 10% interest rate, it will

be worth $1.10 after one year, $1.21 after two years, and so on. Discounting reverses this process, by calculating the value, in today’s dollars, of a given amount received in the future. For example, if a person is promised $1.10 at the end of a year, and their discount rate is 10%, they would be equally happy with $1.00 today.

• We discount for two reasons. – First, people generally prefer to receive benefits sooner rather

than later, and to pay costs later rather than sooner. – Second, money that is available now can be invested and earn a

return. Thus, money available now is worth more to people than money received in the future.

Homo economicus

• Homo economicus is a rational, self-interested, labor-averse individual.

• Concept used in many economic theories that see humans as rational and narrowly self- interested actors. – "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the

brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.“ (Adam Smith)

Rational Economist and Posterity

• Can Homo economicus justify taking care of the interests of posterity?

• Can we motivate people to pay a price now that won’t be cashed in for many generations?

• Will we sow now so future generations can reap the benefits?

• Hardin is highly skeptical that we will be able to motivate people to protect posterity purely on economic/rational grounds.

“$1 to plant a redwood seedling”

• Hardin tells the story of how he spent $1 to plant a redwood seedling that would take two thousand years to reach its full value of $14,000. He confesses that as an “economic man” he was being stupid in planting it, but he did so anyway. – “It is most unlikely that any of my direct

descendants will get [the value of the tree.] The most I can hope for is that an anonymous posterity will benefit by my act. ... Why bother?”

The Failure of Economic Reasoning

• Hardin’s answer is an admission of the failure of economic reasoning. – “I am beginning to suspect that rationality--as we

now conceive it--may be insufficient to secure the end we desire, namely, taking care of the interests of posterity.”

Protecting Posterity • How can one protect posterity, if not

through rational economic means? – Dawn redwood survived because it was

considered sacred • Posterity and Sacred

– “That which is sacred or taboo is generally protected by legends that tend to make the taboo operational: bad luck, the evil eye, the displeasure of the gods....being treated as sacred can protect an object against destruction by impoverished people who might otherwise discount the future in a simplistically rational way.”

“A hungry stomach has no ears”

• If hungry enough, humans will steal from the future to survive now – Aquinas: “necessity knows no law” – “In discounting the future a man’s personal

discount rate is directly related to the emptiness of his stomach.”

• When will seeds for the future be preserved even against the hungry, poor, or dying?

Privileged Institutions and Posterity

• To protect seeds of the future, society needs to develop institutions that will put a few individuals in places of authority and privilege to protect the seeds – Special privilege for posterity

• is not intended to serve the interests of the rich • is intended to help break the cycle of poverty • does not guarantee that seeds will be protected, but it

makes it possible to protect them against those who would use them now

Twofold Conclusion 1. For poor societies, posterity is served by institutionalizing

special privilege and making that privilege hereditary. – By having a connection with one’s family and heritage, one is

likely to want to keep that tradition in place. By keeping one’s family history alive, one looks toward the future. Thus connecting with the future requires connecting with the past. (As Edmund Burke (1729-1797) says, “People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors”).

2. For prosperous societies, posterity is served by modifying existing institutions, including instilling a sense of history through education – Instilling a sense of identity with one’s past and one’s place will

help to preserve the environment for the future

Hardin’s Argument

• Hardin’s argument tells us how to protect future generations and who should protect them.

• But, Hardin, like Heilbroner, does not tell us why we ought to protect future generations who are not yet born!

Next Lecture

• Derek Parfit offers a consequentialist argument for sacrificing a present benefit for the sake of posterity.