My bad, I wasnât very clear when I used the term âcounterargumentâ, and ânuanceâ or something else might have fit better. It doesnât argue against the fact that without humans, there wonât be any species concerned with moral issues, only the case that humans are potentially so immoral that their presence might make the future worse than one with no humans. Which is indeed not really a âcounterargumentâ to the idea that weâd need humans to fix moral issues, but instead argues against the point that this would make it more likely positive than not for the future (since he argues that humans may have very bad moral values, and thus ensure a bad future).
My bad, I wasnât very clear when I used the term âcounterargumentâ, and ânuanceâ or something else might have fit better. It doesnât argue against the fact that without humans, there wonât be any species concerned with moral issues, only the case that humans are potentially so immoral that their presence might make the future worse than one with no humans. Which is indeed not really a âcounterargumentâ to the idea that weâd need humans to fix moral issues, but instead argues against the point that this would make it more likely positive than not for the future (since he argues that humans may have very bad moral values, and thus ensure a bad future).