Future Generations

Philosophical Disagreements regarding the Rights of Future Generations

To the casual observer, the ethical imperative of preserving the Earth for future generations might not appear to present any major problems, but there is a great deal of philosophical controversy surrounding the idea. Much of the discussion concerns the challenge of thinking about the rights of “potential persons” in the indeterminate future versus actual persons here and now.

The first type of philosophical problem surrounds the rights of future generations as “potential persons.” Some say that we cannot speak of rights of persons who do not yet exist. The argument is that because they have no ability to exercise (or relinquish) their rights claims on the present generation, they do not have rights. Opponents of this view point out that there is a distinction between moral and legal rights, the former existing independently of any legal structure. If the only rights that existed were those currently enforceable under the law, then there would be no social change. Oppressive practices such as slavery and segregation were at one time perfectly legal and enforced by the law, but clearly the rights of those subjected to slavery were violated under that system. In the same [Page 185]way, supporters of the rights of future generations argue that our legal system can (and should) evolve to protect the rights of posterity, particularly with respect to protecting the natural environment.

The second class of problems stems from the temporal distance of future generations. Some argue that we need to consider only our obligations to others living at the same time. One version of this argument is espoused by the cornucopians, who claim that technological innovation will create new resources and solutions to environmental problems, which is effectively saying that the future will take care of itself. This is probably the most extreme case, but there are others who take more intermediate positions on this issue precisely because of the temporal distance between present and future generations.

Another conundrum arising from the temporal distance problem is that preservation of resources for future generations creates an ad infinitum set of obligations: If we preserve resources for the next generation, then the subsequent generation would also have the same obligation. This raises the problem of determining which generation would actually get to use those resources. The counterpoint to this position is to distinguish between resource types. There are certain resources, like endangered species, that do not have much use value but are important to preserve because of their intrinsic value. Other resources, such as energy reserves, are arguably expendable, as long as concerted efforts are made to find alternatives that will supply ample power for the needs of subsequent generations.

...