Note: I’m happy to hear feedback via DM, if you have any :)
That’s a question that comes up a lot, and it makes sense. It’s similar to the question of how much we should care about people in a different country. After all, it feels natural to care more about people close to you. But I think if you deconstruct this moral intuition, you’ll find that we don’t actually discount the value of a human life based on where or when they live. Instead, it’s simply easier to effectively help those close to us, so we are predisposed to do that.
It’s hard to know that your intervention will actually work the way you intend, if you plan it in the future. The future is hard to predict, and circumstances might be different then. If we look to the past as an example, this is less of a problem. Do you think that a rich person in ancient Rome, 2000 years ago, saving someone of starvation, has done a better thing than someone today who would save someone of starvation? Probably not, since they did pretty much the same thing: save someone’s life.
Now sure, the person that was saved 2000 years ago possibly impacted the world a lot in this time, and probably in a good way. Measuring total impact, the Roman philanthropist achieved more, through an additional 2000 years of ripple effects. This might be a reason to help people now instead of later, but it still doesn’t mean we should value their own lives less.
So, we should be somewhat biased to help people here and now, since we know that it works and that they will in turn have a longer future to positively affect. But I think the intrinsic value of their own lives does not depend on when they live.
Note: I’m happy to hear feedback via DM, if you have any :)
That’s a question that comes up a lot, and it makes sense. It’s similar to the question of how much we should care about people in a different country. After all, it feels natural to care more about people close to you. But I think if you deconstruct this moral intuition, you’ll find that we don’t actually discount the value of a human life based on where or when they live. Instead, it’s simply easier to effectively help those close to us, so we are predisposed to do that.
It’s hard to know that your intervention will actually work the way you intend, if you plan it in the future. The future is hard to predict, and circumstances might be different then. If we look to the past as an example, this is less of a problem. Do you think that a rich person in ancient Rome, 2000 years ago, saving someone of starvation, has done a better thing than someone today who would save someone of starvation? Probably not, since they did pretty much the same thing: save someone’s life.
Now sure, the person that was saved 2000 years ago possibly impacted the world a lot in this time, and probably in a good way. Measuring total impact, the Roman philanthropist achieved more, through an additional 2000 years of ripple effects. This might be a reason to help people now instead of later, but it still doesn’t mean we should value their own lives less.
So, we should be somewhat biased to help people here and now, since we know that it works and that they will in turn have a longer future to positively affect. But I think the intrinsic value of their own lives does not depend on when they live.
Thanks for your submission!