Longtermism and the ethics of people who don't exist yet

Longtermism and the ethics of people who don't exist yet

An exploration of the philosophical argument that future generations deserve equal moral weight to those living today, and the intense debate over whether this justifies neglecting current suffering.

Listen in the Fylom app.

Show notes

Future individuals are not harmed by current choices because those choices are what enabled their specific existence.

Temporal neutrality suggests that pain occurring in one hundred years is as morally significant as pain today.

The Total View treats well-being as an additive ledger where trillions of future lives carry immense weight.

The Repugnant Conclusion suggests a massive population with mediocre lives is better than a small flourishing one.

Fanaticism risks diverting resources from current food insecurity to address tiny probabilities of future human extinction.

Weak longtermism balances our responsibility to the twenty-second century with primary obligations to people living now.

In this episode
  1. 01Intro1 min
  2. 02The Parfit Foundation: Neutrality Across Time3 min
  3. 03The Math of the Future: Trillions in the Balance3 min
  4. 04The Repugnant Conclusion and Fanaticism3 min
  5. 05The Presentist Critique: The Tyranny of the Unborn3 min
  6. 06Outro1 min
Sources
Your turn

Fylom generates episodes like this on any topic you're curious about.

Fylom episodes are researched, written, and voiced by AI. Automated checks help catch inaccuracies, but episodes aren't reviewed by a human and AI can still get things wrong. Treat them as a starting point, not a source of record — more in our accuracy disclaimer.