The questions

Relation to the world· Nature and the livingdifficulty

Future generations

Do we have duties toward future generations?

Can we owe anything to beings who do not yet exist, who claim nothing, and whom our choices will bring into being as they will be? Making room for them can weigh heavily on the living; ignoring them means mortgaging a world we will never see. To take a position is to say how far our responsibility extends in time.

ResponsibilityprinciplePriority tothe present
The poles, and who holds them

Responsibility principle

2

Our power to act now extends to the living conditions of generations to come: we have a duty to act so that the effects of our actions remain compatible with the permanence of genuinely human life on Earth. The distant future enters the scope of morality.

Explore this position →
Associated figures: Jonas
Who stands here
Show implicit positions (2)
Baconinferable

Bacon conceives his enterprise as a bequest: he sows for harvests he will not see, founds a knowledge whose benefits will accrue to ages to come, and works for posterity more than for his own time. Yet this orientation toward those who will come is not the preservation principle of a , who seeks to shield future generations from our power: it is the reverse, the hope of handing down that increased power to them as a benefit.

Novum Organum, preface to the Great Instauration

Marxinferable

The meaning of present action lies wholly in the emancipation of future generations: today's revolutionary sacrifice is justified by tomorrow's liberated society. Marx even criticises treating the earth as property: no society owns it; men are merely its usufructuaries and must hand it on improved to succeeding generations, which leans toward a responsibility for the future.

Capital, vol. III, ch. 46 (men as mere usufructuaries of the earth, to be bequeathed improved)

Priority to the present

0

Our obligations are owed first to the people who exist here and now: their needs are real and urgent, whereas the interests of future individuals remain hypothetical and uncertain. Sacrificing the present to a distant future would be unjust to the living.

Explore this position →
pole without a named tradition
Who stands here

No figure stands here, in this slice.

Youyou have not taken a stand on this axis yet.Locate yourself2 figures · 0 movements mapped
Problems

See the problem map in the Atlas →

  • PrescriptiveMoral Thought experiment
    The world after

    Our choices impoverish the distant world, but also decide who will be born into it: those people would not exist under a different policy. Can we harm them, if none of them is worse off than they would otherwise have been, having never existed otherwise?

    the people of the future
Going further

Sub-problems to deepen this axis's discussion

  • Descriptive
    A right with no bearer?

    A right seems to require a bearer who exists; future beings do not yet exist, claim nothing, can do nothing for us. Can there be an obligation with no reciprocity and no one to hold it, or does our duty toward them rest on something other than a right?

    a being yet to be born
  • PrescriptiveMoral
    To bring into being, or only not to harm?

    Do we have a duty to bring future people into being, or only, if they are to exist, not to harm them? Nothing seems to require us to create happy beings, whereas creating miserable ones would be a wrong; and seeking to maximise total happiness leads to preferring a multitude of barely-good lives to a small flourishing humanity.

    the population to come
  • PrescriptivePolitical & legal
    Is a distant good worth less?

    Should a benefit or harm to future people count for less simply because it lies far off in time, as the economic reckoning that discounts the future does, or is that preference for the present a moral error, a mere failure of imagination? A very small annual rate is enough to make a distant catastrophe almost weightless today.

    a future benefit

Related problems to broaden toward other axes

  • PrescriptivePolitical & legal
    A fair share across the ages

    Grant that we owe the future something: what is the fair division of resources and burdens across generations, how much must each age save, and who bears the cost of averting a distant harm, such as the climate burden?

    resources across generations
  • PrescriptivePolitical & legal
    The living, or the inheritance?

    Do the living have the right to rewrite what the dead built, "the earth belongs to the living", or are we the trustees of a legacy we must hand on to the generations to come?

    the generationsTradition and transformation
  • PrescriptiveExistential
    For whom to build after oneself?

    To plant a tree whose shade you will never sit under: do we owe anything to those who will come, who have done nothing for us? Transmission turns the present toward a future that outlasts us.

    those who will comeTemporal orientation

All problems →