The Ethics of Sustainability
Jean Kazez
Philosophy Department
SMU
Sustainable development
Sustainable fishing
Sustainable agriculture
Sustainable consumption
Sustainable mining
Sustainable drilling
Sustainable forestry
What does it mean?
Sustainable X-ing =
Doing X in such a way that future people
will have “enough and as good”*
* Phrase from John Locke, 1690
If sustainable then innocent?
Sustainable graffiti
Sustainable tiger hunting
Sustainable whaling
Sustainable cannibalism
If it’s permissible to do X at all,
then we are obligated to do X
sustainably
But why are we obligated?
Are we really?
X
2012
2100
2025
2050
2075
X = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc.
1. Why must we leave as much and as good
for future people? What if that requires us
to sacrifice money, work, time, satisfaction,
etc.?
X
2012
2025
2050
2075
2100
X = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc.
2. Must we sacrifice just as much for people in
the far future as for people in the near future?
Survey
You are given $1000 that you must donate to
future people. What amounts will you give to
the people of each year? (Make sure numbers
add up to 1000!)
2025
2050
2075
2100
5000
4500
4000
Student9
3500
Student8
Student7
3000
Student6
2500
Student5
Student4
2000
Student3
1500
Student2
Student1
1000
500
0
yr2025
yr2050
yr2075
yr2100
Allocations of 9 students in Environmental Ethics class
The Debate about
Duties to Future People
Defenders – we must give
the same consideration to
future people as to people
living right now.
Discounters – there are
good reasons to sacrifice
less for future people than
for people living right
now. The further in the
future, the less we should
sacrifice.
Defenders of Future People
• Students prejudiced.
• Prejudice against future people is like
prejudice against other disadvantaged groups.
• We are all susceptible to this prejudice.
• We even feel it toward our own future selves.
Defenders of Future People
• We are like people at a party saying “first come
first served!”
• Earth’s resources belong to all, no matter when
they “arrive”. Locke (1690): “the earth and all
inferior creatures” are “common to all men”
• Locke: we can appropriate resources by “mixing
our labor” with them, but only if we leave
“enough and as good” for others (present and
future).
Defenders of Future People
• Guardians of the Future – Future people are
entitled to political representation
Discounters of Future People
• Discount means “should sacrifice less for
them” – not “should totally dismiss.”
• The further in the future, the more we should
discount; 2025 vs. 2100.
• Economics: social discount rate.
Social Discount Rate
(1.4% vs. 6%)
John Broome, “The Ethics of Climate Change,” Scientific American, 2008
Why discount future people?
Some spooky reasons
• Most future people are non-existent. Why
should we make sacrifices for non-existent
people?
• Our policies, however reckless, will alter who
exists in the future. Whoever exists will
most likely be glad they exist, so they won’t
have any complaint about our policies.
Why discount future people?
More spooky reasons
• God will provide … maybe even a second
planet!
• The end is nigh – eat drink and be merry!
Why discount future people?
(some better reasons)
1. Nearer future people are closer relatives of
ours, so we have stronger obligations to
them.
2. Future people will be richer than us; poor
don’t have to help rich.
Why discount future people?
(some better reasons)
3. We should save for future people not spend
for them (they’ll be better off)
4. There are a zillion future people – we can’t
have duties to them all.
Why discount future people?
(some better reasons)
5. They will have knowledge and technology we
can’t anticipate.
Manure Project*, London 1850
Naïve and Gratuitous (NAG)
* Imaginary
Defenders vs. Discounters
Which side is right?
Are any of these good reasons to discount
the problems of future people?
1. Nearer future people are closer
relatives of ours.
2. Future people will be richer than
us; why should poor give to rich?
3. We should save for them, not
spend on them now.
4. There are a zillion future people –
we can’t have duties to them all.
5. They will have knowledge and
technology we can’t predict.
The Mixed Truth
• Should overcome bias.
• No fixed rate of discount.
• Should not assume future people will be rich;
we may make them poor!
• However, we should try to avoid wasting
money and effort on NAGs.
Definite NAG
Don’t bother
• Sustainable song-writing (save some melodies
for future generations).
• Sustainable mountain-climbing (save some
first ascents for future generations).
• Can you think of a non-silly example of a
definite NAG?
Definite NAG
NAG
Don’t bother
Might be NAG
Might be NAG
Definitely not
Not worth it
Should do anyway
Must do
Definitely not NAG
Must do
• Sustainable land use – future people will not
be able to “invent” new land (e.g. city living,
building “up”)
• Conservation – future people will not be able
to recreate wilderness and biodiversity that
we destroy
• Population control – future people will not be
able to cope with huge populations
Might be NAG
should do anyway
• Greenhouse gas reduction
(future people may have
geoengineering solution)
• Eat less meat because it
wastes land (future people
may be eating lab meat)
Might be NAG
not worth it
• Very high probability of helpful future
knowledge
• Very high sacrifice and expense for us
• Examples?
Summary
1. Sustainable X-ing means saving “enough and
as good” for future people
2. Sustainable X-ing is only good if X is
permissible to begin with
3. There’s a debate between discounters and
defenders of future people
4. Wise planners will avoid NAG-ing.
Bibliography
• John Broome, “The Ethics of Climate Change,” Scientific American
2008
• John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, 1690
• Derek Parfit, “Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Social
Discount Rate” (1983)
• Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 1984
• Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010)
• FAO (United Nations), Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental
Issues and Options
• Sahotra Sarkar, Environmental Philosophy: From Theory to Practice
(2012)
• Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (2002)