Imagine a child running barefoot through a forest with a broken glass bottle buried just under the soil. Would it be worse for a child today to step on the debris, or for a child 100 years from now to step on it?
This question was posed by philosopher Derek Parfitt in the 1980s and was meant to clarify our moral obligations to generations to come. It would be just as bad, he argued, to deliberately risk harm to future humans, today or 100 years from now.
Parfitt’s ideas inspired a branch of moral philosophy called Longtermism. It is based on his three premises. That future people matter, that there can be many future people, and that we have the power to make their lives better or worse. Ensuring that the future works out, therefore, should be an important moral priority of our time.
At first glance, they all seem reasonable. Apparently, it promotes the universal values of stewardship, duty to one’s descendants, and being a “good ancestor.” However, long-termism is controversial, with some critics arguing that it is a “dangerous ideology” that either condones or fosters the suffering of people living today.
is that fair? To make your own decisions, the first thing you need to know is that long-termism has many facets. Much of the harshest criticism has focused on the implications of “strong long-termism” introduced in a 2021 paper by Oxford University’s Hilary Greaves and William MacAskill, which is a modern moral I think it should be top priority.
This will have a noticeable impact on how money is spent in the real world. In fact, it is already having an impact. …
