Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:47:28.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sacrificing the Patrol: Utilitarianism, Future Generations and Infinity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Luc Van Liedekerke  and
Luc Lauwers
Luc Van Liedekerke
Affiliation:
UFSIA
Luc Lauwers
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many people believe that we have responsibility towards the distant future, but exactly how far this responsibility reaches and how we can find a reasonable ethical foundation for it has not been answered in any definitive manner. Future people have no power over us, they form no part of our moral community and it is unclear how we can represent them in a possible original position. All these problems can be circumvented when you take an impersonal decision criterion like maximizing total or average utility. Such a sum-ranking criterion is neutral with respect to distance in time or space: my utility, my neighbour's and that of our descendants all carry the same weight. This makes future people an integral part of present decisions. Time-neutrality was defended by, among others, Sidgwick, Pigou and Ramsey.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , October 1997 , pp. 159 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asheim, G. B. 1991. ‘Unjust intergenerational allocations’. Journal of Economic Theory, 54:350–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, Robert J. 1964. ‘Markets with a continuum of traders’. Econometrica, 32:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bahwerk, Eugene von. 1921. Positive Theorie des Kapitales. Fischer VerlagGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald E. 1985. ‘Impossibility theorems and infinite horizon planning’, Social Choice and Welfare, 2:283–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cass, David. 1965. ‘Optimum growth in an aggregative model of capital accumulation’. Review of Economic Studies, 32:233–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, James. 1995. ‘Infinite utility’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73:401–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and Heal, G.. 1979. Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Peter. 1965. ‘The evaluation of infinite utility streams’. Econometrica, 33:170–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. E. 1965. Functional Analysis, Theory and Applications. Holt, Reinhart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. G. 1986. ‘Intergenerational preference orderings’. Social Choice and Welfare, 3:151–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1930. The Theory of Interest. MacMillanGoogle Scholar
Hart, Sergiu. 1982. ‘Non-zero-sum two-person repeated games with incomplete information’. CORE Discussion Paper, 8203Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling. 1960. ‘Stationary ordinary utility and impatience’. Econometrica, 28:287–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling. 1965. ‘On the concept of optimal economic growth’. In The Econometric Approach to Development Planning. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarium Scripta Varia, 28:225–87Google Scholar
Lauwers, Luc. 1995a. Social Choice with Infinite Populations. Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, Luc. 1995b. ‘Time-neutrality and linearity’. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 24:347–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, John. 1990. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Masso, Jordi. 1993. ‘Undiscounted equilibrium payoffs of repeated games with a continuum of players’. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 22:243–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Paul-André. 1973. ‘Limites médiales, d'après Mokobodzki’. In Seminaire de probabilité VII. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 321. Edited by Meyer, Paul-André, pp. 243–64. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Mark. 1991. ‘Utilitarian eschatology’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 28:339–47Google Scholar
Nelson, Mark and Garcia, J. 1994. ‘The problem of endless joy: is infinite utility too much for utilitarianism?’. Utilitas, 6:183–92Google Scholar
Ng, Yew-Kwang. 1995. ‘Infinite utility and Van Liedekerke's impossibility: a solution’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73:408–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigou, Alfred. 1952. The Economics of Welfare. MacMillanGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, Frank. 1928. ‘A mathematical theory of saving’. Economic Journal, 38:543–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerberg, Krister. 1976. ‘A neglected family of aggregation problems in ethics’. Nôus, 10:221–47Google Scholar
Shinotsuka, T. 1994. ‘Equity, continuity, and myopia: a generalisation of Diamond's impossibility theorem’. Working paper: Otaru UniversityGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry. 1907. The Methods of Ethics. MacMillanGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, Bernard. 1973. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, L. G. 1980. ‘Equity among generations’. Econometrica, 48:1251–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, Jan. 1960. ‘Optimum savings and utility maximisation over time’. Econometrica, 28:481–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, Peter. 1993. ‘Utilitarianism and infinite utility’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71:212–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, Peter. 1994. ‘Infinite utility and temporal neutrality’. Utilitas, 6:193–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, Peter. 1995. ‘Infinite utility: anonymity and person-centredness’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73:413–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, Peter and Kagan, Shelly. 1996. ‘Infinite value and finitely additive value theory’. Unpublished paperCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Ernest-August Jr 1981. ‘Finitely additive exchange economies’. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 8:221–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiszäcker, C. C. von. 1965. ‘Existence of optimal program of accumulation for an infinite time horizon’. Review of Economic Studies, 32:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar