• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      102 months ago

      I fail to see how the mere concept makes sense right now. That’s the same flawed logic as longtermists use.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it’s more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people. Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that consent is relevant.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          62 months ago

          It’s the other side of the same coin. They both argue about the well-being/bad-being of hypothetical humans. It’s bogus, either way.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 months ago

            I think you make a great point. Have you read about the problems with “person-affecting views”? It’s admittedly a bit harder to grasp, but doesn’t seem less problematic to me.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 months ago

            They are not related because you have to exist to experience well-being or “bad-being”. What I’m talking about is consenting to exist.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              42 months ago

              Longtermists try to justify their actions by invoking potential, future generations. Those don’t exist either.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 months ago

                They’re presuming that people will exist, which is not a wild assumption

                But that’s not a philosophy I particularly subscribe to so I don’t feel compelled to explain or defend it further.