Navigation
Investigating the ethical obligations current populations have toward people who do not yet exist.
If you chose a specific policy today that caused a minor environmental disaster in 100 years, but that same policy also changed the timing of every conception on Earth, would the people born into that disaster actually have a right to complain—given that they wouldn't exist at all without your 'bad' choice?
Intergenerational justice is the branch of ethics that explores the moral obligations current populations have toward people who do not yet exist. Unlike traditional ethics, which deals with contemporaries, this field must grapple with the fact that our actions today determine the quality of life for billions in the future. A primary framework used here is John Rawls' 'Veil of Ignorance'. Imagine you are behind a veil where you don't know when you will be born. To be fair, you would likely choose a world where no generation—past, present, or future—is unfairly disadvantaged by the resource consumption of others. This leads to the Sustainability Principle: we should meet our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.
Quick Check
According to the 'Veil of Ignorance' logic, why is it irrational to deplete all natural resources today?
Answer
Because if you didn't know which generation you belonged to, you wouldn't risk being born into a future with no resources.
Proposed by philosopher Derek Parfit, the Non-Identity Problem is a logical paradox that challenges our duty to the future. It suggests that our large-scale social policies (like choosing to use fossil fuels vs. renewables) don't just change the environment; they change who is born. Because the timing of conception is so sensitive, a different policy results in a completely different set of people being born 100 years from now. If those future people have lives that are 'worth living' (even if difficult), can they say they were harmed by our choice? If we had chosen the 'better' policy, they would never have existed at all. This creates a moral vacuum: how can an act be 'wrong' if it doesn't actually harm any specific individual who would have otherwise been better off?
1. A community chooses a 'Risky Energy Policy' that provides high wealth now but will cause toxic leaks in 200 years. 2. Because of this policy, different people meet and marry than would have under a 'Safe Policy'. 3. 200 years later, 'Person A' is born into a polluted world. 4. If the 'Safe Policy' had been chosen, 'Person A' would never have been conceived; 'Person B' would have been born instead. 5. Since 'Person A' has a life worth living, they cannot claim they were harmed by the Risky Policy, because the alternative for them was non-existence.
Quick Check
What is the core 'paradox' in the Non-Identity Problem?
Answer
An action seems wrong even though it doesn't make any specific person worse off than they otherwise would have been.
Which concept suggests we should make decisions as if we don't know which generation we will belong to?
Why does the Non-Identity Problem make climate change ethics difficult?
A high social discount rate () makes it more likely that a government will invest in long-term climate projects.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the 'Risky Policy' example to a friend and see if they can spot the paradox of the Non-Identity Problem.
Practice Activity
Research the 'Brundtland Report' and identify one specific policy your local government could adopt to better align with its definition of sustainability.