Future Generations and Contemporary Ethics

Environmental Values 12 (4):471 - 487 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Future generations do not exist, and are not determinate in their make-up. The moral significance of future generations cannot be accounted for on the basis of a purely individualistic ethic. Yet future generations are morally significant. The Person-Affecting Principle, that (roughly) only acts which are likely to affect particular individuals are morally significant, must be augmented in such a way as to take into account the moral significance of Homo sapiens, a holistic entity which certainly does exist. Recent contributions to Environmental Values by Alan Carter and Ernest Partridge are criticised (but not entirely rejected)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,990

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-09-29

Downloads
57 (#274,289)

6 months
16 (#217,114)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Are Species Really Individuals?David L. Hull - 1976 - Systematic Zoology 25:174–191.
Future generations: Further problems.Derek Parfit - 1982 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 11 (2):113-172.
Obligations to posterity.Thomas Schwartz - 1978 - In Richard I. Sikora & Brian Barry (eds.), Obligations to future generations. Cambridge, UK: White Horse Press. pp. 3--3.
Can We Harm Furture People?Alan Carter - 2001 - Environmental Values 10 (4):429-454.
Kitts and Kitts and Caplan on species.David L. Hull - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (1):141-152.

View all 8 references / Add more references