Imagine a child, running barefoot through a forest, and a broken glass bottle buried just beneath the soil. What’s worse: that a present-day child steps on the shards, or that a child in 100 years from now does?
This question, posed by philosopher Derek Parfit in the 1980s, was intended to clarify our moral obligations towards unborn generations. Parfit argued that knowingly risking harm to a future person is equally wrong, whether it happens today or in a century.
Parfit’s ideas gave rise to a moral philosophy called longtermism, which is based on three premises: future people matter, they could be numerous, and our actions can significantly impact their well-being. Therefore, ensuring a positive future becomes a crucial moral priority.
At first glance, longtermism seems reasonable as it promotes universal values such as stewardship, duty to posterity, and being a “good ancestor.” However, it has faced criticism, with some arguing that it is a “dangerous ideology” that neglects the suffering of present-day individuals.
So, is this criticism valid? To form an opinion, it is important to understand that longtermism comes in different forms. Many of the strongest criticisms are directed towards “strong longtermism,” a variant introduced in a 2021 paper by Hilary Greaves and William MacAskill from the University of Oxford. This version asserts that longtermism should be our top moral priority.
This perspective would have significant implications for how we allocate resources in the real world, and it has already started to influence decision-making.
