Julian the Economist

Posted on August 24, 2011 by William Blumberg
Roman Coin wiht Julian (360 to 363)

Portret van Julianus Apostata op bronzen munt van Antiochië, 360-363. Foto met toestemming van Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (CNG) at http://www.cngcoins.com

Flavius Claudius Julianus Augustus, the last Pagan Roman Emperor (355 CE to 363 CE), has been vilify by some (Julian the Apostate) and held in great esteem by others (Julian the Philosopher); yet, what I have recently leaned from this Roman Emperor are some economic lessons. Check out The History of Rome podcast episode 144 – The Road to Constantinople for more information and the source for my realizability that Julian has more to offer me than philosophy.

Julian during his fateful stay in Gaul…in the little town Lutèce that we now call Paris…faced the ever present problem of the Alamanni (German tribes) and need money to fortify the Rhine frontier. Conventional wisdom presented by the Praetorian Perfect Florentius was to raise taxes but Julian step in (that is overruled Florentius) to lower taxes. Now, if more money is needed, then why would Julian step in and lower taxes. Well the soon to be Emperor also ensured that the rich…who over the years used various tax forgiveness opportunities to simple not pay would in fact pay their taxes. Julian understood that he could lower taxes for those already at the breaking point, permitting a growth in local trade, and still secure the funds needed by taxing those who did have the means to pay. I am not sure if Julian’s understanding of economic growth include the idea of tax relief towards small business people; however, he did seem to have an understanding fairness towards all those he ruled.

I, like many, wonder what would have happened if Julian would have rule longer than he very short time; however, he did not and what we have left is a few writings and sampling of what he tried to do during his time as emperor. I have read some of these philosophical writings but I completely missed his attempt to change how the emperor interacted with the people, economic changes, and the restoration of Paganism. Yet, with such a short time as emperor, Julian did not have much lasting effect.

The lessons I do see are those of being practical about getting to where you want to be. Julian need money to protect the Rhine frontier, so he turned to those who had both money and an obligation to pay. He wanted to restore Paganism but understood the criticism that the temples and clergy were corrupt, so Julian implemented reforms for the temples along with restoration. In my work in the world I have become more of a pragmatist looking for what works while I try to balance what I think is the right thing to do. I get the feeling that Julian was walking this line too and as such is a good example of a philosopher applying actions to change the world.

Joseph R. Hoffmann, in Julian’s Against the Galileans (see his chapter Julian the Restorer) gives the reader an overview of Julain’s writings, times, and life. I would suggest Jonathan Kirsch’s God against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism for an general introduction.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Making Connections

Posted on August 7, 2011 by N. Marie

I love to dabble in the Tarot. Having been a literature major in college and a lover of fairy tales from a very early age, I really connect with the archetypes and stories behind the cards. For me, the Tarot is another tool, like journaling or art,  by which I can interpret my life and raise awareness by turning off the part of my brain that is the censor so that I may enter into introspection with a different perspective. We have all found that sometimes, when you are too close to a situation, you fail to see it for what it really is.

So the other day, I followed a link to a website called Beyond Worlds, and listened to a Tarot podcast by Donnaleigh de la Rose. (Air date: March 5, 2011) During the program, she shared a great tip for a quick read. It was based on a Swedish proverb that says, “Shared joy is a double joy, and shared sorrow is a half a sorrow.” She then suggested pulling two cards and ask: 1)  How can I make joy a shared joy this week? 2) How can I make someone’s sorrow a half sorrow this week? Always enjoying a new tip, I pulled two cards. They seemed pretty self explanatory, so I nodded and went about my business. It wasn’t until later in the week that I actually connected with the reading. I met a friend of mine for dinner. We had a nice evening, and in a moment of sharing, we opened up to each other. Now I know this is not an extraordinary concept. Friends depend on each other all the time. But sometimes we do hold back, we don’t want to burden the other person. We may have things that we feel are too personal to share, or not important enough.  We are afraid of others’ judgement. That night I connected with my friend on a deeper level than we had ever done. I truly feel that we had some bonding and it has greatly enriched our friendship. The next night I went out to meet friends, and even though I had been feeling down, the connection had lifted my spirits. It opened me up to the group and talking with some of the members, I remember thinking that we are all dealing with our own processes at any given time, but the act of gathering and sharing really brings us connection.

I enjoyed reading William’s previous blog about joining his friend at Lughnassadh. I could feel the sense of connection he came away with. So while still composing this I asked him what he took away from the trip – on a personal level. He said, “Separate from any experience I would have had on my own, it was a great honor to be invited into an intimate personal setting with my friend whom I greatly respect. I was able to share a religious experience from her perspective.” He went on to explain that trust was key. He trusted her completely to bring the experience to him and never once felt like an outsider. Friendship brings trust and meaning.

That is so simple. Friendship brings trust and meaning. Everything we experience, everything we must bear, every bit of joy, is what it is to be human. Human connection brings us joy and helps us on the journey for whatever may come. Life is a process and for better and for worse, we need each other to help us along the way.

Posted in General Post | Tagged , | 3 Comments

My life among the Druids…well one weekend

Posted on August 1, 2011 by William Blumberg
My friend Carol was kind enough to invite me to Driudpalooza, which was a Lughnasadh weekend campout hosted by the Coastal Oak Grove (www.coastoakgrove.com) along with other Druids and Groves for Lughnassadh. Everyone there was gracious and inviting to me. In fact, hospitality (*ghosti) is a core value to Ár nDraíocht Féin: A DruidPaso Picacho Campground Tree Line Fellowship (www.adf.org). This is the formation of the guest/host relationship where hospitality is given to guest in order that guest may be able to provide the same hospitality be that in gifts, time, or energy. This seems closely related to the ancient Greek idea of Xenia (ξενία which is, in part, the rights of a guest but is used in a great sense of friendly relationship within the context of a foreigner and even a foreign state) but with a more modern and perhaps broader meaning.
 
However, what I am interested is applied ethics and see how this concept worked in the real world. There seems to be a subtle but important point that Archdruid Kirk (www.druidkirk.org) pointed out where hospitality is given in order to gain hospitality but to build that relationship where this exchange may occur. Hospitality is not I give to you so that you will give to me but more along the lines of I give to you because it is the right thing to do so that we can build a relationship. This idea of building relationship is part of what I consider Piety. In our everyday lives, we engage in relationship where we give in order to receive. In the morning, I may go for pastry and tea (okay in reality more often a donut and soda) but when I pay I expect to receive the food then not as part of some relationship build where I may be freely given pastries in the future.
 
What this type of hospitality is more like is when I ask a new friend to lunch and pay for the meal. I do not think that one day they may pay for me too. What I think is that I want to grow my friendship by building the relationship. I offer the gift of the meal to say that my time with you is important to me and I honor it by this meal. And, I did fill honor by the hospitality provide by Coastal Oak Grove and all those who attended. This is a good value to learn from these Druids for Pagan Humanist.
 
Just a few disclaimers, I did not attend this event in order to look at the practice of *ghosti, I was an invited guest and feel blessed for being included with both the weekend camping trip and the Lughnasadh celebrations. Also, please do not take one weekend as a sign that I truly understand ADF and its members understand of *ghosti, only as my limited view.
Posted in Philosophy, Piety | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Obligations towards Future Generations

Posted on July 25, 2011 by William Blumberg

There are other avenues which Pagans may engage with considerations of our obligations towards future generations. The very idea of future generations may be challenge by a metaphysical paradigm which reject lineal time so that to speak of future generation may make as much sense of speaking to those people west of us until we come full circle to ourselves. Dualism may be inherit within a system that separates actuality and non-actuality people and thus run counter to some Pagans.

By being born we are linked and thus have a biological and moral connection.[1] Many Pagans see this connection as important to their religion and thus worthy of moral consideration. Even though our connection to future generations may be filled with paradoxes and uncertainties, Pagans are inclined toward making moral consideration through intuition and experience in which some of these philosophical considerations are nothing more than interesting thought experiments. However, from my perspective as a person who engages with religious philosophy, I feel that Pagans have a voice—a multiplicity of voices—that should be heard at many levels on the topic of what our obligations are to future generations and other ethical considerations.

[1] Daniel Callahan, “What Obligations Do We Have to Future Generations?” American Ecclesiastical Review 164 (1971).

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Temporal Remoteness

Posted on July 18, 2011 by William Blumberg

The concerns that Partridge writes about all seem to have this central theme of what to do about moral obligations to those people who do not yet exist. Brain Barry reflects that people alive in hundreds of years can be made better off by us; however, but they cannot make us better off[1] may not be completely true. Although there may be no guaranty, what we do now may reflect how future generations view us. Honor is an important religious value to many Pagans. The idea that our honor may be impugned by those future generations because we do not engage in right relationships when we had the opportunity to do so can be seen as harm to those of us today. We can see this in our struggles with understanding the imperfections of our ancestors who, even though we may admire, we have to accept that they were human and thus intrinsically flawed.[2]

Judgment about our actions may be harsher by those distant generations. Some of the criteria that may be used to judge moral obligations are knowledge and capacity, which are directly related to science and technology. Our present society is better able to determine the probability for the outcomes of our action that our ancestors where. We are able to dramatically affect the world around us through this knowledge and technology and with this power is linked long range effect upon the environment and future generations but no previous ethical background with which to deal with it.[3] How we treat the environment, enact polices on population, and invests in just institutions[4] are a few suggested means thought which people affect the future.

“Honour and Integrity are qualities which enables someone to want to do something right and just,” Brendan Myers claims, “not because of the good consequences that may entail, and not because the act fulfils the requirement of some moral law. Rather, a person’s own sense of purpose and worth motivates her.”[5] Along with this, Myers suggests that honor evolves public and relationship concepts that a person acquires through actions.[6] Myers ideas are closely related to virtue ethics in which a person become virtuous by performing virtuous actions. 

There is one more crucial point that comes with knowledge and that is the ability to make choices. This is one of those places that Pagan religious philosophers can engage with John Rawls. Rawls examined and defended the moral principle that human begins need to be capable of obeying an ethical principle in order to be held morally accountable for it. We do not have an obligation to future generations if we are unable to do otherwise. Although Schwartz would claim that there is no value significance because we are affecting no individual’s life, I believe that we are obligated to choose the best of the potential lives. It may seem a bit simplistic; however, if I use a Rawls’ model, his original position, I would ask the question, ‘what is the best course of action if I was uncertain which generation I would exist,’ then I would answer that we should neither put an unreasonable strain upon this generation nor leave an unbearable cost to future generations.[7] This balance in moral consideration is one of the roots of fully honorable relationships of which Orr speaks.

[1] Brian Barry, “Justice Between Generation,” in Law, Morality and Society, ed. P.M.S. Hacker and J. Raz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977). 

[2] An example in the US would be holding the framers of our Constitution in high regards even though they permitted the barbaric act of slavery to continue while expressing liberty and freedom that would only slowly be generalized to the wider population.

[3] Hans Jonas, “Technology and Responsibility: The Ethic of an Endangered Future,” in Responsibilities to Future Generations, ed. Ernest Partridge (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981).

[4] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1971).

[5] Brendan Myers, The Other Side of Virtue (Winchester, UK: O Books, 2008), 49-50.

[6] Ibin, 45-46.

[7] John Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” in Justice and Economic Distribution, ed, John Arthur and William H. Shaw (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1978), 46.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Re-Population Paradox

Posted on July 1, 2011 by William Blumberg

The re-population paradox is a vexing problem with theoretical views on applied ethics; however, Pagans often bases their beliefs in experience and intuition. Davidson’s ‘precautionary’ approach seems well match for Pagan Ethics in general and for dealing with this particular problem.[1] In Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics, Orr claims “[n]othing is separate. Every thought, every action, vibrates through the web.”[2] What we do matters and has consequences not only for ourselves and the world we live in today but also for those future generations.

“Though it is important to prepare for the future, to be honourable in our actions bearing in mind the road ahead,” Orr writes, “ a *Pagan [sic] does not live for the future, not dependent upon it. To do so would be to live without authenticity, not adequately present and therefore unable to make fully honourable relationships.”[3] What is it to be mindful of the future but not to live for it? Orr seems to have in mind that Pagans are concerned with building honorable relationships today in order to live fully. How does this philosophy relate to our obligations to future generations?

To begin with Orr may be writing only about how we live our lives within our own lifetime: but the idea of making fully honorable relationships may be of practical concern for our ethical consideration of future generations. By ensuring that we are in right relationship with our environment and others today, I think our obligations to future generations should, at least in part, be met. It seems inconsistent to think that we could engage in honorable relationships today that could adversely affect those in future generations. To accept unsustainable growth in nonrenewable energies would seem non-honorable. For how are we able to create a relationship dependent on nonrenewable energies; that is, those types of energies that tend to cause ecological destruction, which would be considered honorable not only to future generations but to the bonds we forge between our current relationship and environment. To act honorably is to ensure that we are informed and make choices that, as Orr suggest, create “the relationships through which life naturally flows.”[4]

As the distance between us and future generations increases there is more uncertainty as to what our obligation are to ‘distant’ future generations is and needs to be tempered with our obligation to intervening generations. When generations become more distant, we do not know what they would want. That they may not value the same ideals, goods, lifestyles, or socialites we do.[5] However, while matters of taste will change, are future humans to be thought of as so very different to us as to think that such things as a healthy environment or the basic wellbeing of other humans would not be valued? Orr claims that “nature is a beautifully self-crafted and ever-changing web of simple energy and consciousness.”[6] Because of the interconnected nature of reality, actions that seem informed and prudent may have unforeseen consequences. We can never know with absolute certainty that our actions today will not in some way harm others.[7]

There are other considerations regarding the re-population paradox. Many pagans believe in some form of reincarnation so that in some sense future generations are actually known to us now—even including ourselves. Although I do not intend making the argument in this paper that our ethical considerations to future generations should be predicated on reincarnation, it could provide fruitful grounds on a theoretical model to engage ethically for those who would be born in the distant future. This approach may work well with John Rawls ideas of justice as fairness and his original position.[8] Both of these ideas are found in Rawls, A Theory of Justice and are worthy of consideration for those who explore Pagan religious philosophy and ethics. Sadly, this will need to be a topic for another time.

[1] Marc D. Davidson, “Wrongful Harm to Future Generations: The Case of Climate Change,” Environmental Values 17.4 (2008), 473.

[2] Emma Restall Orr, Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics (Winchester, UK: O Books, 2007), 33.

[3] Ibid, 217

[4] Emma Restall Orr, Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics (Winchester, UK: O Books, 2007), 96-97

[5] Based upon Martin P. Golding ideas in “Obligations to Future Generations,” The Monist 56 (1972).

[6] Emma Restall Orr, Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics (Winchester, UK: O Books, 2007), 143.

[7] John J. Coughlin, Ethics and the Craft: The History, Evolution, and Practice of Wiccan Ethics (New York: Waning Moon Publications, 2009), 7.

[8] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1971). There is also the consideration of group decision based on non-hierarchal roles.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Beginning A Pagan Perspective

Posted on June 28, 2011 by William Blumberg

What is a Pagan Perspective? Note the hedge of ‘a Pagan Perspective’ ensuring that the multiplicity of Pagan voices be given adequate space. These voices will give rise to questions on some of the themes presented by both Schwartz and Partridge with some other concerns on our obligations to future generations.

Pagan voices are being heard in discourse about ecology and ethics. David Kinsley, in his Ecology and Religion, writes that Pagans, along with other religions, are involved in ecofeminist spirituality[1]. Kinsley points towards the general Pagan belief that all of nature is sacred and there is an interconnectedness of life.[2] From of this sense of interconnectedness, and having a religion based in experience, Pagans are often more concerned with right actions than with right beliefs.

I have claimed that Pagans are people of piety[3]. Piety is the right action towards a relationship; the idea of orthopraxy (όρθοπραξις). Relationships may be towards the gods, other humans, or the world. This may be close to what Emma Restall Orr has in mind with honorable relation.

[1] David Kinsley, Ecology and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), 206-209.

[2] David Kinsley, Ecology and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), 209.

[3] 2009 Conference, Piety (Єύσέβεia) as Pagan Religion

Posted in Philosophy, Piety | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Paradox with Future Generations

Posted on June 8, 2011 by William Blumberg

The re-population paradox is a vexing problem with theoretical views on applied ethics; however, Pagans often bases their beliefs in experience and intuition. Davidson’s ‘precautionary’ approach seems well match for Pagan Ethics in general and for dealing with this particular problem.[1] In Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics, Orr claims “[n]othing is separate. Every thought, every action, vibrates through the web.”[2] What we do matters and has consequences not only for ourselves and the world we live in today but also for those future generations.

“Though it is important to prepare for the future, to be honourable in our actions bearing in mind the road ahead,” Orr writes, “ a *Pagan [sic] does not live for the future, not dependent upon it. To do so would be to live without authenticity, not adequately present and therefore unable to make fully honourable relationships.”[3] What is it to be mindful of the future but not to live for it? Orr seems to have in mind that Pagans are concerned with building honorable relationships today in order to live fully. How does this philosophy relate to our obligations to future generations?

To begin with Orr may be writing only about how we live our lives within our own lifetime: but the idea of making fully honorable relationships may be of practical concern for our ethical consideration of future generations. By ensuring that we are in right relationship with our environment and others today, I think our obligations to future generations should, at least in part, be met. It seems inconsistent to think that we could engage in honorable relationships today that could adversely affect those in future generations. To accept unsustainable growth in nonrenewable energies would seem non-honorable. For how are we able to create a relationship dependent on nonrenewable energies; that is, those types of energies that tend to cause ecological destruction, which would be considered honorable not only to future generations but to the bonds we forge between our current relationship and environment. To act honorably is to ensure that we are informed and make choices that, as Orr suggest, create “the relationships through which life naturally flows.”[4]

As the distance between us and future generations increases there is more uncertainty as to what our obligation are to ‘distant’ future generations is and needs to be tempered with our obligation to intervening generations. When generations become more distant, we do not know what they would want. That they may not value the same ideals, goods, lifestyles, or socialites we do.[5] However, while matters of taste will change, are future humans to be thought of as so very different to us as to think that such things as a healthy environment or the basic wellbeing of other humans would not be valued? Orr claims that “nature is a beautifully self-crafted and ever-changing web of simple energy and consciousness.”[6] Because of the interconnected nature of reality, actions that seem informed and prudent may have unforeseen consequences. We can never know with absolute certainty that our actions today will not in some way harm others.[7]

There are other considerations regarding the re-population paradox. Many pagans believe in some form of reincarnation so that in some sense future generations are actually known to us now—even including ourselves. Although I do not intend making the argument in this blog that our ethical considerations to future generations should be predicated on reincarnation, it could provide fruitful grounds on a theoretical model to engage ethically for those who would be born in the distant future. This approach may work well with John Rawls ideas of justice as fairness and his original position.[8] Both of these ideas are found in Rawls, A Theory of Justice and are worthy of consideration for those who explore Pagan religious philosophy and ethics. Sadly, this will need to be a topic for another time.

 

[1] Marc D. Davidson, “Wrongful Harm to Future Generations: The Case of Climate Change,” Environmental Values 17.4 (2008), 473.

[2] Emma Restall Orr, Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics (Winchester, UK: O Books, 2007), 33.

[3] Ibid, 217

[4] Emma Restall Orr, Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics (Winchester, UK: O Books, 2007), 96-97

[5] Based upon Martin P. Golding ideas in “Obligations to Future Generations,” The Monist 56 (1972).

[6] Emma Restall Orr, Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics (Winchester, UK: O Books, 2007), 143.

[7] John J. Coughlin, Ethics and the Craft: The History, Evolution, and Practice of Wiccan Ethics (New York: Waning Moon Publications, 2009), 7.

[8] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1971). There is also the consideration of group decision based on non-hierarchal roles.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Pagan Perspectives and Interactions

Posted on May 31, 2011 by William Blumberg

What is a Pagan Perspective? Note the hedge of ‘a Pagan Perspective’ ensuring that the multiplicity of Pagan voices be given adequate space. These voices will give rise to questions on some of the themes presented by both Schwartz and Partridge with some other concerns on our obligations to future generations.

Pagan voices are being heard in discourse about ecology and ethics. David Kinsley, in his Ecology and Religion, writes that Pagans, along with other religions, are involved in ecofeminist spirituality[1]. Kinsley points towards the general Pagan belief that all of nature is sacred and there is an interconnectedness of life.[2] From of this sense of interconnectedness, and having a religion based in experience, Pagans are often more concerned with right actions than with right beliefs.

I have claimed that Pagans are people of piety[3]. Piety is the right action towards a relationship; the idea of orthopraxy (όρθοπραξις). Relationships may be towards the gods, other humans, or the world. This may be close to what Emma Restall Orr has in mind with honorable relationships. It is in our actions towards relationship which may be perceived as ethically correct. I do not mean correct at a single way of interacting but in line with permitting the flow of life to flourish in the multiplicity of biological systems.

[1] David Kinsley, Ecology and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), 206-209.

[2] David Kinsley, Ecology and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), 209.

[3] 2009 Conference, Piety (Єύσέβεia) as Pagan Religion

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Five Ethical Issues with Future Generations

Posted on May 15, 2011 by William Blumberg

Ernest Partridge, in his “On the Rights of Future Generations,” examines five particular problems when dealing with future generations: the re-population paradox (which is based upon Schwartz’s ideas),[1] temporal remoteness, ‘No-claims’ argument, non-actuality, and indeterminacy.[2]

As seen with Schwartz’s challenge to obligations to future generations, by making changes in our actions we may alter future generations and thus they would be different individuals than the ones for which we were attempting to make the changes for. Partridge is willing to accept that changes, especially long-term policies, do create different individual but rejects Schwartz’s inference that we then have no obligation to future persons.[3] Schwartz only takes into account our obligations to individuals and not to persons in general.[4] And, as puzzling as this derived paradox is, Partridge argues that humans are able to “display a concern for future other” and are morally correct to do so.[5] He bases this upon moral psychology and our ability to transcend the self[6]. Through this ability our responsibilities include people in general, not just particular individuals.[7] In part, this generalization stems from our connection to others as well as to our environment including those in the distant future.

The time-span argument holds that we cannot be held responsible by those with non-concurrent lives who are unable to reciprocate in action or communication.[8] Partridge rejects this argument by suggesting that such factors as probability, efficacy, and choice are morally relevant and that the time span should not be seen as the pertinent factor.[9] There are uncertainties about the effects of our actions today; however, this does not mean that we cannot be held morally responsible for choices that have known high probabilities to negatively impact the future.

The No-Claims argument is that if there are no legal rights to be had by future generations then there are no moral rights. While legal and moral rights sometimes go hand in hand, they are not necessarily linked as such. Besides, there are examples of legal rights for yet-to-be-born persons such as inherent rights based upon a will. In addition, there are legal rights for future persons in current law. For example, the National Parks Service Organic Act states that the National Park Service shall promote, protect and regulate Federal areas in its charge “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”[10] Further, just because a person may not have a legal right, does not preclude the person from having moral rights. Today, there are many who would claim that there is a moral right for same-sex marriage based upon universal human rights, equality before the law, and even mental and physical health concerns. Even if there is no protect under the law, our moral obligations still stand.

Yet, how can a person that is non-actuality, and in some sense even imaginary, have rights now? This question has similar problems as the re-population paradox, ‘no-claim’ and indeterminacy argument. Future generations have no identifiable members, and thus no rights—either moral or legal—can be ascribed to a class of persons with no identifiable members.[11] Once again this is looking for particular individual not people in general. Even if we are unable to determine individuals—either because of non-actual (they have yet to be born) or indeterminacy (we do not know who will be born)—who should be afforded moral consideration, there are still legal and moral consideration.

These are only two of many voices that are engage in discussions about our obligations to future generations. Most of these voices speak from a secular viewpoint; yet, there are more and more religious writers engaging in this dialog; and while academic philosophy tends to be critical of those who speak from a religious place and may not place as much value on such conclusions, our voices can and should be heard.

[1] This is the same as Parfit’s “non-identity problem” ” in Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984) and Schwartz “the case of the disappearing beneficiaries” Thomas Schwartz, “Obligations to Posterity,” in Obligations to Future Generations, ed. by R. I. Sikora and Brain Barry (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978)

[2] Ernest Partridge, “On the Rights of Future Generations,” in Upstream/Downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics, ed. D. Scherer (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990).

[3] Ernest Partridge, “On the Rights of Future Generations,” in Upstream/Downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics, ed. D. Scherer (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990). and Partridge, “Should We Seek a Better Future.”

[4] Ernest Partridge in personal conversations.

[5] Ernest Partridge, “Why Care About the Future?” in Responsibilities to Future Generations, ed. Ernest Partridge (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 204.

[6] Ibid,

[7] Ernest Partridge, “On the Rights of Future Generations,” in Upstream/Downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics, ed. D. Scherer (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990).

[8] However, causation in this case is temporal directed with only a one-way exchange between intergeneration persons from Axel Gosseries, “On Future Generations’ Future Rights,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 16.4 (2008).

[9] Ernest Partridge, “On the Rights of Future Generations,” in Upstream/Downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics, ed. D. Scherer (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990).

[10] National Parks Service Organic Act. U.S. Code. 1916. Vol. 16, sec 1.

[11] Ruth Macklin, “Can Future Generations Correctly Be Said to Have Rights?” in Responsibilities to Future Generations, ed. Ernest Partridge (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 151-152.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment