Executive summary: While total utilitarianism and narrow person-affecting views offer extreme positions on valuing future generations, a more plausible middle ground combines strong person-directed reasons to care about existing individuals with weaker impersonal reasons to bring good lives into existence.
Key points:
Total utilitarianism and narrow person-affecting views have significant flaws in how they value future lives.
A hybrid approach balancing person-directed and impersonal reasons avoids these pitfalls while still prioritizing existential risk reduction.
Common arguments against valuing future lives (procreative obligations, population ethics paradoxes, metaphysical confusion) are refuted.
Longtermism, which prioritizes positively influencing the long-term future, is difficult to deny in principle but faces practical challenges.
Investing in research on improving long-term outcomes and mitigating existential risks is a prudent course of action.
While the optimal balance between “longtermist” and “neartermist” priorities is unclear, increasing consideration of the long-term future is warranted.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: While total utilitarianism and narrow person-affecting views offer extreme positions on valuing future generations, a more plausible middle ground combines strong person-directed reasons to care about existing individuals with weaker impersonal reasons to bring good lives into existence.
Key points:
Total utilitarianism and narrow person-affecting views have significant flaws in how they value future lives.
A hybrid approach balancing person-directed and impersonal reasons avoids these pitfalls while still prioritizing existential risk reduction.
Common arguments against valuing future lives (procreative obligations, population ethics paradoxes, metaphysical confusion) are refuted.
Longtermism, which prioritizes positively influencing the long-term future, is difficult to deny in principle but faces practical challenges.
Investing in research on improving long-term outcomes and mitigating existential risks is a prudent course of action.
While the optimal balance between “longtermist” and “neartermist” priorities is unclear, increasing consideration of the long-term future is warranted.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.