| An Obligation to Future Generations?
An Obligation to Future Generations?
We might consider the question, Do we have an obligation to future generations? in terms of the liberalism/communitarianism debate and in doing so contrast the interests of the individual rights holder with those of a community extended to include future generations. In such a debate the latter is clearly the weaker position for the concept of community is contingent upon the concept of the individual; in that communities are necessarily made up of individuals, whereas the reverse is not necessary. Further, community is a somewhat ephemeral concept at the best of times, and its questionable what obligations individuals owe common definitions of the idea, let alone one stretched to include the presently absent.
Thus, if we argue for an obligation to future generations in these terms we find ourselves on the wrong side of such concepts as freedom and choice, pleading with the individual to honor the concept of community on ethical grounds, against the interests of the individual rights holder. This makes it a very difficult argument even while our conscience screams at us from the sidelines, but there is a basis of analysis that considerably strengthens the case for an obligation to future generations though some re-conceptualization of the question is necessary.
A scientifically valid conception of reality, and therefore an evolutionary conception of the human being recommends itself as a basis of analysis in that it is supported by vast amounts of corroborating evidence; which in terms of truth claims is slightly weaker than empirical proof but then 4 billion years is a long time to wait for the result of an experiment. An evolutionary conception of the human being is more than philosophical conjecture or political ideology however, and describes in scientifically valid terms the relationship between the individual organism and the species.
Both liberalism and communitarianism cast the presently existing generation as the sole locus of meaning, and rightful judge of what matters and why but an evolutionary understanding of the human being refutes this. Previous generations struggled to survive and breed, accumulating the capacities necessary to form societies and develop systems of communicating and recording information. Thus, what we are and what we know is not our doing but the product of the evolutionary struggle of previous generations.
Personally, I do not feel in the slightest diminished by acknowledging that evolutionary disposition massively outranks personal development on any fair list of my virtues, just as an argument I make is not diminished by correctly referencing the ideas of great philosophers and scientists of previous generations whose wisdom and knowledge is employed.
That so, it is only by denying a scientifically valid conception of the human being we can assert the rights of the individual, laying sole claim to what we are and what we know, as if by sending an e-mail one were taking credit for the invention of the computer. By rights, we dont even own the language in which the e-mail is written, but merely the form of words used and the meaning they convey or to decipher the analogy, we own nothing but the responsibility for our actions.
An understanding of ourselves as an evolved and evolving species includes past, present and future generations in our concept of self philosophically prior to concepts of individual and community. As an evolved and evolving species, its difficult to argue that any generation has the right to squander the product of 4 billion years of evolutionary struggle in a self-serving hedonistic splurge breaking the chain of life and drawing a halt to evolutionary development. Therefore our obligation is not to future generations per se, but to the true nature of our being encompassing past, present and future generations of the species to which we belong.
Whilst these conjectures are directly critical of liberalism, and come down on the communitarian side of this debate, communitarianism insofar as the term might be employed, is equally undermined. As an ethical and political ideology communitarianism is only slightly less ephemeral than the concept of community itself but the common thread running through the works of McIntyre, Taylor, Sandel and Waltzer is an emphasis on the psycho-social and ethical importance of community.
A scientific conception of reality, and therefore an evolutionary conception of human beings denies the fundamental significance of definitions of community following from race, religion or nationhood. Scientifically conceived, humankind is a single species occupying a single planet, and true to our true nature, with a common interest in the continued existence and development of the species. Definitions of community following from race, religion and nationhood are scientifically unfounded and divisive, and employed as a basis for political deliberations stand in the way of scientifically possible solutions to extinction threats from the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation.
Therefore, despite the communitarian critique of liberalism its unlikely that communitarianism could make good on the obligation to future generations it argues that liberalism, for its emphasis on individual rights is unable to honor. Communitarian ideas uphold concepts that are psycho-socially destructive, in that they divide the human species at a deep and unreasonable level that does not allow for recognition of the true nature of our being, and ethically defunct in that this does not allow for the continued existence of the species. Only by wholly accepting a scientific conception of ourselves and the reality we inhabit can we make good on an obligation to future generations, past generations, our present selves and above all, encompassing all these the human species.
 |