It seems to me that you use āintergenerational justiceā and longtermism in somewhat synonymous fashion. I think I would disagree with this sentiment. Longtermism is a specific set of positions whereas I would see intergenerational justice as a more open concept that can be defined and discussed from different positions.
I also think that there are reasonable critiques of longtermism. In the spirit of your post, I hope you stay open to considering those views.
Thatās fair. I tend to think of intergenerational justice as synonymous with a weak form of longtermism, although perhaps ālongtermismā is too loaded a term (Iām thinking of a bare bones version of āFuture generations are worthy of moral considerationā).
I also agree there are reasonable critiques of (stronger forms of) longtermism. I wouldnāt call myself a strong longtermist personally, so I suppose I shouldāve been clearer that Iām not making a positive argument for any particular form of longtermism. Rather, my goal is to respond to what I see as some fairly extreme and flat-footed responses to weak longtermism.
I think it would be helpful to not use longtermism in this synonymous way because I think itās prone to lead to misunderstandings and unproductive conflict.
For example, there is a school of thought called the person affecting view, which denies that future, non-existing people have moral patient hood but would still be able to have reasonable discussions about intergenerational justice in the sense of children might want to have children, etc.
In general, I wouldnāt characterize those views as any more or less extreme or flat-footed than weak forms of longtermism. I think these are difficult topics that are contentious by nature.
For me, the key is to stay open-minded and seek some form of discursive resolution that allows us to move forward in a constructive and ideally for all acceptable way. (Thatās a critical pragmatist stance inspired by discourse ethics)
This is why I appreciate your curiosity and willingness to engage with different perspectives, even if itās sometimes hard to understand opposing viewpoints. Keep at it! :)
It seems to me that you use āintergenerational justiceā and longtermism in somewhat synonymous fashion. I think I would disagree with this sentiment. Longtermism is a specific set of positions whereas I would see intergenerational justice as a more open concept that can be defined and discussed from different positions.
I also think that there are reasonable critiques of longtermism. In the spirit of your post, I hope you stay open to considering those views.
Thatās fair. I tend to think of intergenerational justice as synonymous with a weak form of longtermism, although perhaps ālongtermismā is too loaded a term (Iām thinking of a bare bones version of āFuture generations are worthy of moral considerationā).
I also agree there are reasonable critiques of (stronger forms of) longtermism. I wouldnāt call myself a strong longtermist personally, so I suppose I shouldāve been clearer that Iām not making a positive argument for any particular form of longtermism. Rather, my goal is to respond to what I see as some fairly extreme and flat-footed responses to weak longtermism.
I think it would be helpful to not use longtermism in this synonymous way because I think itās prone to lead to misunderstandings and unproductive conflict.
For example, there is a school of thought called the person affecting view, which denies that future, non-existing people have moral patient hood but would still be able to have reasonable discussions about intergenerational justice in the sense of children might want to have children, etc.
In general, I wouldnāt characterize those views as any more or less extreme or flat-footed than weak forms of longtermism. I think these are difficult topics that are contentious by nature.
For me, the key is to stay open-minded and seek some form of discursive resolution that allows us to move forward in a constructive and ideally for all acceptable way. (Thatās a critical pragmatist stance inspired by discourse ethics)
This is why I appreciate your curiosity and willingness to engage with different perspectives, even if itās sometimes hard to understand opposing viewpoints. Keep at it! :)