ASK A QUESTION

RECENT RESPONSES

CONCEPT CLOUD


CATEGORIES

  • Panelist Login

Ethics, Existence, Time

SEE ANOTHER QUESTION
in Ethics
in Existence
in Time

What do we owe to people who don't yet exist? Intuitively, it seems to me that we shouldn't, say, cause widespread damage to earth because it will so valuable to our descendants. But can we really be said to be doing something wrong to someone who doesn't exist? And would it be wrong to do something that would cause them never to exist in the first place? It seems that if we can do moral harm to future people, but it isn't wrong to cause them to never exist, then it morally superior to never have children rather to bring children into the world in which you have done the *slightest* damage. (The children, of course, would disagree.) But if it is wrong to cause them to never exist-and, since they would drastically prefer to exist-then we have a tremendous burden to reproduce as much as possible.

If it make any difference, I am interested in how these question relates to our burden to reduce catastrophic/existential risks to the human species (global warming, nuclear war, gray goo, etc.).

April 8, 2008

Response from Gabriel Segal on April 12, 2008

That's a lot of difficult questions! First: I think we can do wrong to people who don't yet exist. It seems unfair to be less respectful of someone who will be born in, say, 2020 than someone who was born in, say, 1995. Second: it is not obvious that your second question makes much sense. You can't do wrong to a being who doesn't exist, never has existed and never will exist, simply because there are no such beings! A future being isn't yet around to be harmed, but will be later. But non-existent beings aren't there to be harmed.

You go on to consider a conditional: 'if ... it isn't wrong to cause them never to exist ...' where 'them' is supposed to refer to future people. But if we cause there to be no future people then 'them' doesn't refer and there is no issue about harming them.

Still one might want to argue that we have a duty not to make the planet uninhabitable because we have a duty to our species. I am not sure how to justify that, but the thought seems to have some intuitive appeal.

Print PRINT Send2friends E-MAIL
E-MAIL THIS ENTRY

Recipient's e-address: required
(separate multiple e-addresses with commas)
Your name: required
Your e-address: required
Message:

Track TRACK

TRACK THIS ENTRY

If you provide your e-mail address, you will be automatically notified whenever this question receives a response. Your e-mail address will not be used for any other purpose, and it will not be given or sold to anyone.

E-mail:

SHARE
SHARE THIS ENTRY

del.icio.us
Digg! Digg
Facebook
reddit
StumbleUpon