Harming Future People

[Tree of Life]

Is it possible to harm future people? If so, is it wrong to do so?

An example might be current consumption patterns related to carbon use. The idea is that our use of carbon now will harm the earth and deprive future people (people who do not yet exist - people who are purely hypothetical) of a habitable world.

Is such a course of action wrong because it harms future, hypothetical people? Shouldn't we just be concerned about here, now, and people that actually exist rather than worrying about some nebulous future?

 

[PapaZoom]

Is it possible to harm future people? If so, is it wrong to do so?

An example might be current consumption patterns related to carbon use. The idea is that our use of carbon now will harm the earth and deprive future people (people who do not yet exist - people who are purely hypothetical) of a habitable world.

Is such a course of action wrong because it harms future, hypothetical people? Shouldn't we just be concerned about here, now, and people that actually exist rather than worrying about some nebulous future?

Except your example isn't accurate. C02 is good for the planet and we will not harm the earth with it. We have past events where the C02 was much higher. Oceans rise and fall. Ice forms and melts. Seasons change. Climate changes. Not long ago we had a cooling trend.

Yes we should care about taking care of the planet and in particular, our immediate environment.

 

[Tree of Life]

Whether humans are causing climate change is not really the point I want to discuss. I'm wondering about the ethics of being concerned for hypothetical, future people.

 

[PapaZoom]

Based on something actual yes. But your example isn't actual.

 

[SkyWriting]

Shouldn't we just be concerned about here, now, and people that actually exist rather than worrying about some nebulous future?

Since I've had no children, I must transfer my concern to yours.

21 Trouble pursues the sinner, but the righteous are rewarded with good things.

22 A good person leaves an inheritance for their children's children,
but a sinner's wealth is stored up for the righteous.

 

[Cearbhall]

Nothing wrong with altruism.

 

[durangodawood]

What exactly is the moral difference between an act that you think will harm a person you know, tomorrow, VS an act that you think will harm a person you dont know, 20 or 100 years in the future?

 

[Tree of Life]

What exactly is the moral difference between an act that you think will harm a person you know, tomorrow, VS an act that you think will harm a person you dont know, 20 or 100 years in the future?

Do you think that there's a moral difference?

One difference is that my action harming a person living here and now is harming a real, living person. An action that harms a person 100 years from now only harms a hypothetical person at the time that I commit the action. This may or may not constitute a moral difference. What do you think?

 

[AionPhanes]

It's generally best to avoid doing things that will cause long term environmental damage that will result in major problems for the people living under said conditions.

If this is connected with the abortion thread I would point out that fetuses are not persons and terminating a pregnancy doesn't result in harm to a person current or future.

If I fail to conceive a child that I could possibly have conceived (had I mated at the time instead of playing video games like the nerd I am) am I hurting a future person? No, what future person did I hurt? I simply didn't do what's necessary to bring a child into the world I didn't harm some theoretical child that never was. Same thing with a women refraining from gestating a fetus and deciding instead to abort. No person is harmed because no person was terminated.

 

[Cearbhall]

If this is connected with the abortion thread

Yes, it is.

I would point out that fetuses are not persons and terminating a pregnancy doesn't result in harm to a person current or future.

/thread

 

[Tree of Life]

I was inspired to discuss this topic because of the abortion discussion. But why not try to answer the question? Why not have this discussion on its own merits without trying to simultaneously defend your views on abortion? Let it play out and see if your views are consistent.

 

[PapaZoom]

What exactly is the moral difference between an act that you think will harm a person you know, tomorrow, VS an act that you think will harm a person you dont know, 20 or 100 years in the future?

Off hand I'd say not a lot of difference.

 

[Tree of Life]

It's generally best to avoid doing things that will cause long term environmental damage that will result in major problems for the people living under said conditions.

If this is connected with the abortion thread I would point out that fetuses are not persons and terminating a pregnancy doesn't result in harm to a person current or future.

If I fail to conceive a child that I could possibly have conceived (had I mated at the time instead of playing video games like the nerd I am) am I hurting a future person? No, what future person did I hurt? I simply didn't do what's necessary to bring a child into the world I didn't harm some theoretical child that never was. Same thing with a women refraining from gestating a fetus and deciding instead to abort. No person is harmed because no person was terminated.

I don't see an answer to the questions here so I'll repeat the questions. Is it possible to harm future people? If so, is it wrong to do so?

 

[bhsmte]

Is it possible to harm future people? If so, is it wrong to do so?

An example might be current consumption patterns related to carbon use. The idea is that our use of carbon now will harm the earth and deprive future people (people who do not yet exist - people who are purely hypothetical) of a habitable world.

Is such a course of action wrong because it harms future, hypothetical people? Shouldn't we just be concerned about here, now, and people that actually exist rather than worrying about some nebulous future?

I guess it would depend how concerned people are for the future generations.

 

[Tree of Life]

I guess it would depend how concerned people are for the future generations.

Whether or not it's possible to harm future people depends upon the concern of present people?

 

[bhsmte]

Whether or not it's possible to harm future people depends upon the concern of present people?

You gave the example of carbon emissions. There appears to be credible evidence, that if nothing is done about this, significant harm can be done to the ability of future generations to survive. Doing nothing, when we have evidence showing the risk, is indeed harming future people's.

Whether society does anything about it, would likely depend on societies concern for future generations.

 

[Tree of Life]

You gave the example of carbon emissions. There appears to be credible evidence, that if nothing is done about this, significant harm can be done to the ability of future generations to survive. Doing nothing, when we have evidence showing the risk, is indeed harming future people's.

So I take it that you believe that it is possible to harm future people. Is this correct?

Whether society does anything about it, would likely depend on societies concern for future generations.

Do you think that society should do something about it? That is, is it wrong to harm future people?

 

[bhsmte]

So I take it that you believe that it is possible to harm future people. Is this correct?



Do you think that society should do something about it? That is, is it wrong to harm future people?

There is no question, that our actions today can harm people in the future.

Lets say you lived in a house and knew that the basement had flooded on a few occasions and caused moisture to permeate the walls and breed mold growth over a period of time. You sold this house to someone and decided not to tell them about the problem and you chose not to have the moisture removed from behind the drywall before you moved and the future people who bought the house, became very ill from being exposed to this mold.

This is a clear example of being responsible for an action (or lack of action) that caused harm to the future owners of the house.

 

[Tree of Life]

There is no question, that our actions today can harm people in the future.

Lets say you lived in a house and knew that the basement had flooded on a few occasions and caused moisture to permeate the walls and breed mold growth over a period of time. You sold this house to someone and decided not to tell them about the problem and you chose not to have the moisture removed from behind the drywall before you moved and the future people who bought the house, became very ill from being exposed to this mold.

This is a clear example of being responsible for an action (or lack of action) that caused harm to the future owners of the house.

Does this principle still hold if the future home owners don't yet exist? Even if they are born after you die? Has your negligence harmed them? Is what you did wrong for this reason?

 

[bhsmte]

Does this principle still hold if the future home owners don't yet exist? Even if they are born after you die? Has your negligence harmed them? Is what you did wrong for this reason?

It appears as though, we should only be concerned about the people alive today? Is that what you are saying?