Philosophy
20: Ethics
Pierce College
Department of History, Philosophy, & Sociology
Lecture Notes for Heilbroner's
"What Has Posterity Ever Done for Me?"
Empathic Capacities
space and time ...
Posterity seems to be
beyond my rational care
Consider the voice of
rationality, as presented in Business and Society Review:
"Suppose that, as a
result of using up all the world's resources, human life did come to an end. So
what? What is so desirable about an indefinite continuation of the human
species, religious convictions apart? It may well be that nearly everybody who
is already here on earth would be reluctant to die, and that everybody has an
instinctive fear of death. But one must not confuse this with the notion that,
in any meaningful sense, generations who are yet unborn can be said to be
better off if they are born than if they are not."
Or from The Economic
Growth Controversy:
" ... Geological time
[has been] made comprehensible to our finite human minds by the statement that
the 4.5 billion years of the earth's history [are] equivalent to once around
the world in an SST. ... Man got on eight miles before the end, and industrial
man got on six feet before the end. ... Today we are having a debate about the
extent to which man ought to maximize the length of time that he is on the
airplane.
"According to what the
scientists think, the sun is gradually expanding and 12 billion years from now
the earth will be swallowed up by the sun. This means that our airplane has
time to go round three more times. Do we want man to be on it for all three
times around the world? Are we interested in man being on for another eight
miles? Are we interested in man being on for another six feet? Or are we only
interested in man for a fraction of a millimeterÐour lifetimes?
"That led me to think:
Do I care what happens a thousand years from now? ... Do I care when man gets
off the airplane? I think I basically [have come] to the conclusion that I
don't care whether man is on the airplane for another eight feet, or if man is
on the airplane another three times around the world."
Perhaps our problem lies
beyond the capacities of our rationality?
Consider Adam Smith:
"Suppose, asked
Smith, that 'a man of humanity' in Europe were to learn of a fearful earthquake
in ChinaÑan earthquake that swallowed up its millions of inhabitants. How would
that man react? He would, Smith mused, 'make many melancholy reflections about
the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labors of man,
which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a
man of speculation, enter into many reasonings
concerning the effects which this disaster might product upon the commerce of
Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general.' Yet, when this
fine philosophizing was over, would our 'man of humanity' care much about the
catastrophe in distant China? He would not. As Smith tells us, he would 'pursue
his business or his pleasure; take his repose for his diversion, with the same
ease and tranquility as if nothing had happened.'
"But now suppose, Smith says,
that our man were told he was to lose his little
finger on the morrow. A very different reaction would attend the contemplation
of this 'frivolous disaster.' Our man of humanity would be reduced to a
tormented state, tossing all night with fear and dreadÑwhereas 'provided he
never saw them he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of hundred
millions of his brethren.'
"Next, Smith puts the
critical question: Since the hurt to his finger bulks so large and the
catastrophe in China so small, does this mean that a man of humanity, given the
choice, would prefer the extinction of a hundred million Chinese in order to
save his little finger? Smith is unequivocal in his answer. 'Human nature
startles at the thought,' he cries, 'and the world in its greatest depravity
and corruption never produced such a villain as would be capable of entertaining
it.'"
But why lose the finger,
if given such a choice?
It is the "'man
within the beast,'"
An "inner creature of
conscience whose insistent voice brooks no disobedience"
As Smith puts it:
"'it is the love of what is honorable and noble, of the grandeur and
dignity, and superiority of our own characters.'"
As Heilbroner
puts it: "it is one thing to
appraise matters of life and death by the principles of rational self-interest
and quite another to take responsibility for our choice."
This difference is
understood by the "'survivalist'" principle
Self-restraint is needed
for things like population control: a "sacrifice [of] some portion of
life-to-come in order that life itself may be preserved."
"I am hopeful that in
the end a survivalist ethic will come to the foreÐnot from the reading of a few
books or the passing twinge of a pious lecture, but from an experience that
will bring home to us, as Adam Smith brought home to his Òman of humanity,Ó the
personal responsibility that defies all the homicidal promptings of reasonable
calculation."
"Moreover, I believe
that the coming generations, in their encounters with famine, war, and the
threatened life-carrying capacity of the globe, may be given just such an
experience. It is a glimpse into the void of a universe without man. I must
rest my ultimate faith on the discovery by these future generations, as the ax
of the executioner passes into their hands, of the transcendent importance of
posterity for them."