2. One of the most critical aspects that this module
captures/emphasizes is the idea (or fact) that we (in the
contemporary era) are confronted by an environmental crisis.
And it is portrayed as though the future looks bleak, as it
concerns the coming future generations in regards to their
existential interests.
3. Now, for reflection’s sake:
What is your understanding of this environmental crisis, as it
has been portrayed throughout the module?
What is the role of man (humans) in this crisis?
Is man a cause of the crisis?
If so, what does it say about how he perceives nature in terms of value?
4. So, when we consider the current crisis on the one hand, and
future generations on the other:
Do we have any duty towards future generations?
What do we owe the future generations to come in terms of
the following:
• A good ecological environment
5. Moral obligations: Utilitarianism and
Consequentialism
Any talk about our obligations to future generations is essentially a discourse
anchored on utilitarianism and consequentialism.
Utilitarianism is about looking at beliefs, ideals, actions on the basis of
whether they produce happiness, joy, desire and fulfilment.
Consequentialism is about looking at actions from the perspective of their
outcomes/consequences/aftereffects/results.
So in utilitarianism and consequentialism we judge the moral significance of
an action on the basis of the good outcome that the action produces.
6. So, for example, if we say that we owe future generations clean water
air:
• We can say that that goal or obligation is utilitarian in nature because
it is essentially about the good of those to come to have clean water
and air.
• We can say that any action taken today, to ensure clean water and air
for those to come, must be consequentialist (its
outcomes/consequences/aftereffects must lead to the preservation
of clear water and air for those to come.
7. Duty to the future: The Utility argument
Utility
P1. The higher the balance of people’s happiness over suffering (call this balance “utility”), the better the
world is. [1st utilitarian principle]
P2. We have a moral duty not to make the world worse, but to make it better or even the best that we can.
[2nd utilitarian principle]
P3. We have a moral duty not to reduce utility, but to increase or even maximize it. [from P1 & P2]
P4. The fewer environmental resources people have, the less effectively they can satisfy their needs and
desires.
P5. The less effectively people can satisfy their needs and desires, the lower the utility.
P6. We have a moral duty not to reduce people’s environmental resources. [from P3, P4 & P5]
P7. The interests of future people matter just as much as the interests of existing people.
P8. We have a moral duty not to reduce future people’s environmental resources. [from P6 & P7]
C. We have a moral duty not to over- consume environmental resources – that is, not to
8. Younger generation argument
• an argument inspired by Avner de Shalit’s (1994)
• claims that future generations of people are not radically separated
from present generations. After all, what do we mean by a “future
generation”?
• Many people regard their children as representing the future, and
when they grow old enough to become grandparents they can think
of the situation that their children, and their children’s children, face.
• The older people in a community do not just have theoretical
obligations to yet unborn future generations. Instead, they have
obligations to real people: their children, their grandchildren, and
their great-grandchildren.
9. Younger generation argument
P1. People owe a moral duty to younger (but current) generations not to reduce
their capacity to satisfy their needs and desires.
P2. The younger generations’ capacity to satisfy their needs and desires positively
depends on (i) how many environmental resources are available to them and (ii)
how good their technologies are.
P3. We owe a moral duty to our younger generations not to overconsume
environmental resources without compensating them with sufficiently better
technologies. [from P1 & P2]
P4. Our younger generations owe their younger generations the same moral duty.
[from P1 & P2]
P5. Our younger generations’ younger generations owe their younger generations
the same moral duty. [from P1 & P2] and so on …
10. Last Person Argument
The last person argument is usually cited by people who are
pessimistic about our prospects for survival, given the
impending catastrophies instigated by e-crisis factors such as
climate change etc
It states that we have no moral obligation to the future
because there is no future to talk about. As such, no
behaviour + policy changes and actions are needed because
the earth and its inhabitants are doomed.
11. Criticism of the Last Person Argument
• P1. We ought to be morally outraged by the suggestion of destroying
all non- human things and beings on earth after the demise of the last
people.
• P2. The best explanation for our warranted moral outrage is that at
least some of the non- human things and beings on earth have a
value in their own right, independently of their use for human beings.
• C. At least some of the non- human things and beings on earth have
a value in their own right, independently of their use for human
beings. [argument to the best explanation, from P1 & P2]
