The problem of overwhelming sacrifice

For those who have a utilitarian approach to ethics there is another possible problem to consider. If our aim is to maximise happiness (or well-being or preference satisfaction etc.), we get into a problem if we count all happiness/suffering or preference satisfaction/preference frustration independently of when it occurs. If we show equal consideration to future generations and avoid messing things up terribly by for example destroying essential ecosystem services in the near future or start an atomic war, there will be a multitude of generations ahead of us. This means that almost any sacrifice we can make that will benefit future generations is morally required no matter how small the benefit, since there will be many more to enjoy the benefits than who makes the sacrifice.³⁷⁶ Therefore, it seems that we have a duty to live very modestly indeed, and save almost everything to future generations – and so should the next generation, and the one after that and so on. This in turn means that as long as people can expect several generations ahead of them, every future generation would have to abstain from harvesting what was saved by the previous generation, and just hand it over to the next generation.³⁷⁷

This seems like an unreasonably large sacrifice, and it has therefore been suggested that we discount the interests of future generations,³⁷⁸ or even disregard them totally.

Derek Parfit does not agree with this solution, and claims instead that our problem calls for a general limit on how great sacrifices someone can be asked to make for someone else – independently of whether we talk about inter- or intragenerational issues. He also

376 Almond 1995 p.6, Melin 2001 pp.128f, Narveson 1996 p.38,40, Parfit 1987 p.484, Rawls 1973 pp.286f

377 Narveson 1996 p.59

378 Melin 2001 p.129, Parfit 1987 p.484

thinks that if we believe that trying to maximise the total sum of good leads to inequality between generations and if we find this problematic, we should not solve the problem by discounting but by adopting a principle of fair distribution.³⁷⁹ If we discount, we may occasionally end up in situations where we could avoid a larger catastrophe in the future by a relatively modest sacrifice today but find that it is not worth it since the bad effects in the future carry less weight.³⁸⁰

I believe that Parfit is right when he points out that the problem of overwhelming sacrifices is a general problem of distribution and that is not particularly related to intergenerational matters. We have a similar problem in intragenerational ethics: There is an almost endless amount of poverty in the world, and almost any krona I make would generate a larger benefit if I give it to charity than if I spend it myself. Do I have to give up everything? This is a difficult question for utilitarianism, but no utilitarian would seriously propose that we solve it by not counting or by discounting the interests of our contemporaries. If it is not justifiable to use such a method in intragenerational dealings, it cannot reasonably be justifiable when we are dealing with the same problem only on an intergenerational level. Luper-Foy in fact goes as far as stating that we have to deal with the issue of distributing resources justly between different generations before we can take on the task of distributing the resources among contemporaries in a just way.³⁸¹

The point is that if we accept the overwhelming sacrifices in intragenerational relations then we have no excuse for not accepting them in intergenerational relations. If we do not accept such large sacrifices then that is a problem for both inter- and intragenerational ethics and it has to be dealt with in a way that would work both within and between generations.

Discounting does not seem to be considered acceptable within generations and should therefore not be used between generations.

If we want to take on Parfit’s challenge of finding a solution in the form of a system for fair distribution, we would have to step away from basic utilitarianism. If we accept that then what kind of solution should we chose? I will look at two different suggestions, and as we will see, the large number of future people is not just a problem for utilitarians.

Anver de-Shalit especially looks at the problem that we already today have people who have less than a fair chare of resources, and it would not be reasonable to demand from them that they further decrease their use of resources for the benefit of future generations. Anver

379 Parfit 1987 p.184f. According to Melin 2001 p.129, others too have reasoned in the same way.

380 Parfit 1987 p.184f

381 Luper-Foy 1995 p.100

de-Shalit has aimed for a compromise. He suggests that when duties to future generations conflict with “a genuine need to improve the welfare of contemporaries”, we should look for what he calls “a middle way”.³⁸²

When our

obligations to very remote future generations do not contradict obligations to contemporaries, we have no excuse not to fulfil them. If these obligations to very remote future generations clash with certain obligations to contemporaries, and especially to the worst off among our contemporaries, it is reasonable to argue that in some cases our obligations to contemporaries have some priority (although this difference by no means cancels out our obligations to very remote future generations).³⁸³

It is not easy to draw any conclusions from this and it is even harder to find any useful advice on how we should actually behave.

Gregory Kavka suggests that we use Locke’s principles of just acquisition, and adapt them to an intergenerational setting. This means that it would be acceptable for us to use resources as long as we do not waste them and as long as there is “enough and as good” left for others.³⁸⁴ This in turn implies that we should leave the next generation at least as well off regarding resources as we were.³⁸⁵

What does it mean to leave enough and as good of a non-renewable resource? One way of doing so could be to limit the number of people – i.e. to limit the number of competitors for resources – in the future, and thereby decreasing the pressure on the resources.³⁸⁶ That is probably not what Locke had in mind. In addition, for non-renewable resources this would not be enough if we want to uphold Locke’s proviso. Even if we use the resources very sparingly, there will be less and less, and sooner or later, it will be totally depleted. Before that happens, there will be less left than each of us has used and therefore Locke’s proviso will no longer hold.

One way of dealing with this would be to decrease the number of people in each generation and eventually let the species disappear when the resources are exhausted.

382 de-Shalit 1995 p.11

383 de-Shalit 1995 p.11

384 Kavka 1996 p.200

385 Kavka 1996 p.200 Robert Nozick and Robert Elliot are reasoning along the same lines (Melin 2001 p.130).

386 Stenmark 2000 pp.53ff

Kavka is opposed to exterminating humanity,³⁸⁷ but what other alternatives are there?

Kavka talks about recycling and using technology to increase the output of resources,³⁸⁸ but that is probably not enough. Even if we get better at extracting a non-renewable resource, it will disappear eventually and we cannot recycle everything. Some resources are destroyed when we use them. In fact, even for the resources we can recycle, the second law of thermodynamics will eventually claim its due.

An alternative would be to widen the interpretation of Locke’s proviso and allow for substitutes.³⁸⁹ This approach is often advocated by economists (see chapter 2 above), and would be in accordance with e.g. the Brundtland report, which tells us that we may use or even deplete a resource as long as we compensate for the loss.³⁹⁰

Take for example fuel. One way of leaving enough fuel to future generations is to see to it that all future generations will have as much fossil fuel at their disposal as we have had at our disposal. However, since we cannot produce fossil fuel, and since it takes nature millions of years to do so, it means that given a stabile population, we will not be allowed to use any fossil fuel at all. However, if we allow for substitutes, we can use all the fossil fuel there is, given that we find an alternative that will do the same job to the same extent and just as good. This modification of Locke’s proviso seems more reasonable, and would just take a small amendment. We only need to shift focus from the resource to what we can get from it.

What would this shift mean for our investigation? The answer is that it would reaffirm a suspicion that has been brought up before: That it might be acceptable from an anthropocentric instrumental perspective to drive a species to extinction as long as the service or goods we get from it can be substituted by another species or by a non-living source. This means that if we allow for substitution and concentrate our concern on the goods or service rather than on the resource as such even in an intergenerational setting, our theory will be a weaker defence against extinction, and may not be able to entirely account for the intuition we aim to explain.

387 Kavka 1996 pp.192ff

388 Kavka 1996 pp.200f

389 This alternative is apparently suggested by Elliot and Nozick. See Melin 2001 p.130

390 Stenmark 2000 p.56,62f