What Do We Owe Future Generations - Essay Example

What Do We Owe Future Generations Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date There has been a lot of blogosphere discussion of this mighty debate and continuous debates on just how much, us as the present generation owe the future generations. One of the big questions that come up is, “did the previous generations also have a lot to think about what they owed to us?”Ralph Waldo Emerson for instance quoted that insects store up for their future generations(“The American Scholar” pg 27) and found out that the common element also existed in the human mind, giving them an obligation to store up, just like the behavior in insects who store up for their younger grub that they sometimes end up never seeing. He also found a great tradition in the human society to make sacrifices for the future generations so that they may lead better lives. In understanding what the meaning of the word generation is, Buchanan, acknowledges to the fact that generations do exist, but not in an analytical manner (pg 1249). This, she argues from the point that the people who were born at the same time do not necessarily die at the same time which is of the implication that they will live in two different generations. Also not all age mates belong to the same generations. Also a person may change to a totally different person in a different time and hence will not be counted as belonging to that generation. Generations exist, but cannot be categorized by dates of birth. It has an imprecise definition of people who were born within some defined limited time of years. Likewise, future generations also do exist. Buchanan (2009) argues that complication arise out of asking what “we” owe the future generations and at the same time trying to answer the question regarding who falls in the category of the future generations or whoever person might qualify for the membership of the same(pg 1259). Of instance, what type of persons should a government put into consideration while formulating its fiscal policies? Would be possible to think in global terms, i.e the number of persons that will make up the future generations across the whole world? Or will the government only consider its citizens alone when formulating the policies? It however vital that the global aspect is considered other than the national policies. It is tradition that lays down the robust lineage practice that future generations should not be left to fend for themselves. Thus the idea that duties are owed to the future generations is a rooted norm. It has been often said that the present generation is hurting the future generations in ways that they are not realizing. Notably, every decision made today either affects the future generations directly or indirectly (Buchanan 2009). The policy choices that we make are thus very crucial to the interests of our children, grand children and even the grand children. This doesn’t mean that every policy must elevate or be unfairly advantageous to their concerns at the expense of the future generations. It is the moral obligations in the imperatives of morality to make sure that the future generations are not left suffering due to responsibilities that the current generation left out to fulfill them (Buchanan 2009). It is the moral obligation to protect the interests of the future generations that has elicited a lot of debate from scholars, philosophers and even governments at large. Yet still, do we owe anything to the future generations? The question is best answered in discussing intergenerational issues such as distributive justice and intergenerational moral obligations. Notably, the scope of what we owe the future generations is quite wide and still a puzzle. Philosophically, it emerged from Tim Mulgan’s works on the moral theory that all the obligations owed to the future generations cannot be all accommodated using the moral theory (Mulgan 2006). He asserts that we owe so much to the future generations which are comprised of our own children, the children of others, our descendant and those of others and also the future generations in the community even though distant, and also the future generations of the distant others. If anything, there much in intergenerational obligations that the subject of whether we owe anything to the future generations cannot be ignored. Currently, there is no universal agreement that there are duties, or interests to be protected that are owed to the future generations. The arguments are always tentative but viable. For instance, some of the things put forward that are owed to the future generations may include a stable and vibrant economy, good health care and medical services, provision of quality education, a healthy physical environment, political stability, good reproductive rights and measures and also a good government that will uphold the integrity of the citizens just but to mention a few (Buchanan 2009). These obligations run through all the areas of public policy. The policies also create some paradox, as questions have been raised concerning some of the policies that are made and end up having negative effects in future (Buchanan 2009). What if such policies cannot be reversed at all? Therefore there is need that the present generation also determines the potentiality of some of the possible outcomes of the policies that are made. This being the case, some scholars have come up with arguments that the duties owed to the future generations, would in some aspects be in the negative nature. This will specifically apply to some obligations which are bound to tie the hands of those future generations becoming unduly difficult for them to reverse some of the decisions made up for them by the previous generations(Buchanan 2009). Consequently, there is an endless range of issues that and questions as to whether there exists any obligations between successive generations. But different analysis form various sources has tried to address the problem. The concept of whether we owe anything to the future generations lies in the scholarly expounding on intergenerational justice. First and foremost, intergenerational justice, fairness and equity are what form the pillar of the reasons for owing something to the future generation (Buchanan 2009). It is tied by the moral bonds between the generations that and the notion that we are ethically constrained by the burdens of the moral duty that is imposed on the present generation. It articulates the fact that the future generations will also have the right to claim on the same rights that we so seriously claim too. The impact of our actions and decisions on the future generations is the key component that should guide us in policy making and action implementation (D’Amato 1990). For instance, we owe a duty to the future generations to preserve and conserve the global natural environment. There is a common assumption that we owe a duty to the coming generations which are not yet born to preserve the diversity of the planets quality while conserving the resources in it that sustain the environment. The duty to conserve the environment for future generations is said to be an emerging norm of customary international law (D’Amato 1990). According to Professor Weiss, we owe to future generations a global environment which is in no worse condition than the way we enjoy it (1989 pg 65). The issue of intergenerational justice and fairness regarding the environment involves preserving the earth’s resources for the generations that are coming. Most of the thrust is pushed towards the ecosystem’s conservation role. Typically, we owe a duty to the future generations to protect the global environment Weiss 1988). There are three different approaches that have been put forward in regard to the conservation of the environment. The first is called the opulent model which applies the principles of denial and obligations allowing for present extravagance and waste. Secondly, there is the preservationist model. This model on the other hand is extreme in nature and demands that the present generation utilizes the environment while making substantial sacrifices of self denial so as to enhance the legacy of the environment for the sake of the future generations (Buchanan 2009). Thirdly, Weiss suggests that the environment may also be conserved using the equality model and he favours this model the most. Here, the future generations deserve just as good an environmental atmosphere and ecosystem that the present generation is abundantly enjoying (Weiss 1988). The interventions to the environment should not however produce negative effects. This argument was put forward by Parfit (1976) who argues that undertaking specific acts of environmental conservation could be harmful to the future state of nature. He argues that the present generation may for instance pass a law that all automobiles in the state to have catalytic converters. On the face of it, this is actually an intervention that will be successful in the conservation and the preservation of the environment. However, examining the long term effects of the converters, say 100 years later, one comes to the realization that actually the effects of such a policy are more adverse than advantageous since they will have negative impacts on the reproduction health of the then generation. This finding comes to the conclusions that as the years go by, then the outcomes of one environmentally intervention to the future generations exponentially increases. Some policies should thus be examined well before being put in place to make sure that the ecosphere is no later affected. It is the duty of the present generation to ensure that the entire set of the generation and the others to follow benefit greatly from the intervention that has been put in place. The duty is owed as of right, that the present generation is also enjoying benefits from a generation that was once there, hence a duty of reciprocity. The future generation can only be the persons who are awaiting their time to be born. The environment that they should find themselves in should not be any worse than the one we are right in(D’Amato 1990). Any attempted intervention should thus not make the environment comparably worse than if the intervention would not have taken place at all. Parfits thus attempted to show how some environmental interventions may result in negative impacts. Significantly, the obligation to preserve the environment stems from the notion of the future generation as a whole and not because we have particular individuals in mind. This involves a caring attitude that says that whoever inherits the earth must find it in better condition than it is right now. Additionally, the whole generic notion is in itself planted in the modern day developing concept of human rights. The duty we owe to the future generations start from the argument that human rights are fundamental and more important than anything else in the world. They are naturally given, superior than any other value in international law and bestowed upon every individual unconditionally. Therefore no one can take away such rights. Ideally, the same concept applies to future generations which have a basic human right to inherit a clean and comfortable environment, not worse than the present generation enjoys it. It is a moral obligation to preserve the environment for the sake of the future generations, and only the sense of moral obligations is what determines the actions and the policies made by the present generation(D’Amato 1990). The natural sense is in itself not just limited to the actions benefiting ourselves or our descendants but also actions that will not waste or jeopardize the natural environment as a whole. From the 18th century to date, a notable culture has spread across the whole world that: the future is ours to create and that the path ahead is one for progress(Groves 2008). Thus the resulting relationships between the present and the future generations are as a result of the strongly existing moral codes. In some way or another, the things that will keep the future generation going are those things that were also done by past generations. Also, the belief that the future can be radically and entirely changed by the actions of the present generation should thus give it the motivation to make sure that the world is a better place for the coming generations. The state of the environment can be improved by the use of the variety of the knowledge fields available as well as the evolving technologies, economics just but to mention a few. Specifically, for instance, the issue of nuclear waste disposal has attracted growing concern and a variety of international and multilateral discussions concerning the highly diverse effects of the nuclear power that is very dangerous yet it remains actively radioactive for hundreds of years even after disposal. Many solutions could be adopted to try and curb the menace caused by these radioactive elements. But which of the solutions would be more appropriate so as to ensure that the future generations are adequately protected? Some certain forms of environmental degradation may prove to be completely irreversible in the future. Thus a lot of investment is required to protect and preserve the environment. Examples of such irreversible harms include the extinction of certain species of animals, the global temperatures that are increasingly getting warm and the harmful effects of radioactive elements to the atmosphere. Failure to set aside consumption in order to invest in future is similarly irreversible. The rights of the future people should be taken into account when some of the measures to dispose of such like matters are being deliberated upon. The duty owed to the future generations brings in the question of responsibility for the actions undertaken by the present environment. Thus if an individual considers that their rights are vital and important, then they should as well consider those of others equally important. The equality of rights should then be a concept that does not only expand in space but also in time (Groves 2008). It presupposes the fact that then everyone who will ever live, which in this context refers to the future generations, has the same rights of equal weight as everyone else. The future generations have substantial rights just like ours, and are due to what the predecessor generations had in store for them (Weiss 1989). However, the idea that future generations can have rights has been somewhat dismissed by some philosophers arguing that claiming that future generations have their rights that they can claim and be enforced is ridiculous. Their point of view is that a right ought to be possessed at a specific time in space. Thus the alleged future people cannot claim, object to, or enter particular agreements regarding their rights since they are not literally present at the time. That since they cannot claim their rights, they therefore have none. Nonetheless, it stands to the effect that there exists a chain of humanity to which a general obligation of the duty of care is owed (Wright 2008). Even if there is to be short lived obligations between individuals, no one person will dare to enact a very selfish policy that do more harm to their living children and grand children. More so, if everyone in the present generation believed that each and every human being deserved respect and dignity, then everyone would uphold such principles by avoiding making policies that will lead to the future generations living miserable lives. Thus the obligation can be viewed as that not to harm but as a positive obligation owed to all those who will come into existence in the future. This being the case, taking the obligation seriously then will require the present generation to embrace the full knowledge that their actions will inevitably have to touch on the lives of some other people who will come into existence in later years. They are to realize that that their present choices will have consequences on the coming future generations, either positive or negative according to the choices they partake (Buchanan 2009). These places on the present generation an obligation make the right choices that will make the future generations relatively happy. The obligation still passes on to the next generations and the following subsequent ones hence also their duty to make decisions that will the rest of their individuals happy during their time on earth. Every one person is therefore obligated to make choices that are minimal to causing harm. If in case they recognize that the choices will bring negative result, then they are equally bound to reject those particular choices. How much then do we owe the future generations? This argument was put forward by Buchanan(2009) where she argues that the existence of these obligations brings out the idea of how the present generations should then balance their current concerns with the future interests of the future generations. In practice, no philosophical studies have revealed a way in which these interests could be balanced. They simply acknowledge to the fact that an obligation does exist that the present generation owes the future generations. For instance, we have a full duty not to inflict misery upon the coming generations but there is explicit way provided on how a balance of miseries may be created and effected. The only possible approach suggested here is the possibility to choose which of the interests available are willing to balance. An example is when a generation may be willing to pass on cultural and moral connections to the future generation and the same time be not willing to pass their economic assets or their valuable properties in as much as they may be in possession of them (Buchanan 2009). Before balancing the interests, the people involved are to start by making the assumptions that the balancing is necessary and desirable. The next step is to explore the policies to determine which of the policy options adopted is best. The most promising approach is adopted here which involves treating the policy choices in the same manner as the questions of inequality would be treated within the different generations (Wright 2008). This means that the unfamiliar choices that come up ought to be answered with the theories of distributive justice. This offers a more sensible solution to the amount of duty that is owed to the future generations. An interaction with a number of individuals revealed that the standard for measuring the duty owed to the future generations always revealed a desire in most parents that their children should do better than them. This is the basic desire of intergenerational linking and its aim was basically to help the children in the future generations to be used as the building blocks to identify and justify the duty or obligation that runs down the several generations (Dobson 1999). Another point of consideration in regards to the duty that is owed to the future generations is the fact of how deep into the future that duty is owed. In philosophy, the distinction between the present and the future generation that there are the living population and the other one that is yet to be born (Wright 2008). The present generation is also characterized by the individuals who are fully grown hence independent, and those that are still too young to make decisions regarding their future and cannot yet participate in the political governance of the country. The duty of care owed to the younger generation is much deeper than the one owed to the generation that is not yet born. The other aspect is the limits of human existence as these cannot be estimated accurately. This is solely because the life of a human being on earth is unpredictable. It could be prolonged due to good living conditions or at the same time shirted by catastrophes such as landslides or earthquakes. Another shortening factor could even be human activities such as nuclear effects from nuclear related activities or chemical catastrophes (Bandman 1982). More naturally, life o earth cannot go for over one thousand years. The duty owed cannot thus be said to have a specific measure as to the far it goes into the future. This could only be possible if one would have the assurance that the life of a specific generation would end on a particular date. Nevertheless, the whole question of the duty owed primarily focuses on distributive justice, equity and fairness both across the successive generations and within the existing generations (Wright 2008). In conclusion, there exists a very vital intergenerational obligation especially from the present generations towards the future generations. Yes, the current generation owes the biggest duty to the future generation of ensuring that the latter lives decent lives. Every area of social and economic policies must be viewed through the lens of intergenerational obligations(Buchanan 2009). The questions of intergenerational justice, equity and fairness thus encompass so many things ranging from the issues of preserving the environment to that of population levels. The issue of the duty owed to the future generations can however be broadened as far as the imagination of an individual allows. There should be an equitable way of putting a balance between the present rate of consumption and the rate for investment for the future. The analysis predicts a much higher living standard for the future generations, better than what the present generation is enjoying. Another argument is whether we are doing too much for the future generation in as much as the duty is still owed to them. The duty owed could best be achieved only if policies are put in place to improve the current situation. I rest my case. Bibliography Bandman, B. (1982). Do Future Generations Have the Right to Breathe Clean Air? A Note. Political Theory. 10, 95-102. Buchanan, N. (2009). What Do We Owe Future Generations? George Washington Law Review. 77, 1237-1297. D’Amato, A. A. (1990). Do We Owe a Duty to Future Generations to Preserve the Global Environment? American Journal of International Law. -. 841, 190-198. Dobson, A. (1999). Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.pg 106-108. George Washington University. (2009). What does our legal system owe future generations?: new analyses of intergenerational justice for a new century. Washington, D.C., George Washington University Law School. Groves C. (2008). Do we have responsibilities for future generations? Presented at Philosophy Café, The Gate Arts Centre, Roath Cardiff pg 4-7 Mulgan, T. (2006). Future People: A Moderate Consequentialist Account of Our Obligations to Future Generations. Oxford, OUP Oxford. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=716780. Weiss, E. B. (1988). In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity. Tokyo, Japan, United Nations University. Wright, R. E. (2008). One Nation Under Debt: Hamilton, Jefferson, and the History of What We Owe. New York, NY [u.a.], McGraw-Hill.pg 16-18 Read More