Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T08:52:38.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How should utilitarians think about the future?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Tim Mulgan
Tim Mulgan*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Department of Philosophy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Utilitarians must think collectively about the future because many contemporary moral issues require collective responses to avoid possible future harms. But current rule utilitarianism does not accommodate the distant future. Drawing on my recent books Future People and Ethics for a Broken World, I defend a new utilitarianism whose central ethical question is: What moral code should we teach the next generation? This new theory honours utilitarianism’s past and provides the flexibility to adapt to the full range of credible futures – from futures broken by climate change to the digital, virtual and predictable futures produced by various possible technologies.

Keywords

Utilitarianismrule utilitarianismfuture peopleintergenerational justicebroken worldmoral imaginationvirtual reality
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 47 , Issue 2-3: Special issue: Ethics and Future Generations , 2017 , pp. 290 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2017

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

Agar, Nicholas. 2010. Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014625.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agar, Nicholas. 2014. “On the Prudential Irrationality of Mind Uploading.” In Intelligence Unbound: The Future of Uploaded and Machine Minds, edited by Blackford, Russell and Broderick, Damien, 146–160. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bayley, Barrington. 2001. Soul of the Robot. London: Orion Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Blackford, Russell, and Broderick, Damien. 2014. Intelligence Unbound: The Future of Uploaded and Machine Minds. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118736302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, Margaret. 2014. “Creativity and AI: A Contradiction in Terms?” In The Philosophy of Creativity, edited by Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B., 224–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bostrom, Nick. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broome, John. 2004. Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/019924376X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John. 2009. Climate Matters. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
Cowen, Tyler, and Parfit, Derek. 1992. “Against the Social Discount Rate.” In Justice Between Age Groups and Generations, edited by Laslett, P. and Fishkin, J., 144–161. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Crisp, Roger. 2015. “Well-Being.” In The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N.. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/well-being/.Google Scholar
Donner, Wendy, and Fumerton, Richard. 2009. Mill. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444305746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, Greg. 2008a. Diaspora. London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
Egan, Greg. 2008b. Permutation City. London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
Fischer, John, Kane, Robert, Pereboom, Derk, and Vargas, Manuel. 2007. Four Views on Free Will. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 2011. “What We Learn From the Experience Machine.” In The Cambridge Companion to Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, edited by Bader, R. M. and Meadowcroft, J., 59–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Guy. 2013. “A Fresh Start for the Objective-List Theory of Well-Being.” Utilitas 25: 206–220. 10.1017/S0953820812000453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, James. 1986. Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hauskeller, Michael. 2013. Better Humans? Understanding the Enhancement Project. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas. 2007. I Am a Strange Loop. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hooker, Brad. 1994. “Rule-Consequentialism, Incoherence, Fairness.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95: 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, Brad. 2000. Ideal Code, Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, Brad. 2008. “Variable Versus Fixed-rate Rule-utilitarianism.” The Philosophical Quarterly 58: 344–352. 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.518.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank. 1999. From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jamieson, Dale. 2014. Reason in a Dark Time. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337668.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Leonard. 2012. “Rule Consequentialism and Scope.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15: 631–646. 10.1007/s10677-012-9357-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaczmarek, Patrick. 2016. “How Much is Rule-Consequentialism Really Willing to Give Up to Save the Future of Humanity?” Utilitas. doi:10.1017/S0953820816000352.Google Scholar
Lockhart, Ted. 2000. Moral Uncertainty and Its Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacLeod, Ken. 1996. The Star Fraction. London: Orbit.Google Scholar
Miller, Dale. 2000. “Hooker’s Use and Abuse of Reflective Equilibrium.” In Morality, Rules and Consequences, edited by Hooker, B., Mason, E. and Miller, D. E., 156–178. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2001. The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2006. Future People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/019928220X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2007. Understanding Utilitarianism. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2011. Ethics for a Broken World: Reimagining Philosophy After Catastrophe. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2014a. “Ethics for Possible Futures.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) 114: 57–73. 10.1111/j.1467-9264.2014.00364.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2014b. “What is Good for the Distant Future? The Challenge of Climate Change for Utilitarianism.” In God, the Good, and Utilitarianism, edited by Perry, John, 141–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107279629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2014c. “Replies to Critics.” Philosophy and Public Issues 4: 58–92.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2015a. “Mill and the Broken World.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 69: 205–224.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2015b. Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646142.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2015c. “Theory and Intuition in a Broken World.” In Intuition, Theory, and Anti-theory, edited by Chappell, Sophie-Grace, 141–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2015d. “Utilitarianism for a Broken World.” Utilitas 27: 92–114. 10.1017/S0953820814000338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2016a. “Answering to Future People.” Journal of Applied Philosophy. doi:10.1111/japp.12222.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. 2016b. “Theorising about Justice for a Broken World.” In Theorizing Justice: Crucial Insights and Future Directions, edited by Watene, Krushil and Drydyk, Jay, 15–32. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. Forthcoming-a. “Moral Imaginativeness, Moral Creativity, and Possible Futures.” In Creativity and Philosophy, edited by Gaut, Berys and Kieran, Matthew. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Tim. Forthcoming-b. “Moral Philosophy, Superintelligence, and the Singularity.”Google Scholar
Naam, Ramez. 2012. Nexus. London: Axon.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reason and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael. 2006. “Introducing Variable-rate Rule-utilitarianism.” The Philosophical Quarterly 56: 242–253. 10.1111/phiq.2006.56.issue-223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1997. The Mystery of Consciousness. London: Granta.Google Scholar
Sepielli, Andrew. 2014. “What to Do When You Don't Know What to Do When You Don't Know What to Do….” Noûs 48: 521–544. 10.1111/nous.2014.48.issue-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Peter. 1972. “Famine, Affluence and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 229–243.Google Scholar
Skorupski, John. 1989. John Stuart Mill. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Holly. 2010. “Measuring the Consequences of Rules.” Utilitas 22: 413–433. 10.1017/S0953820810000324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stross, Charles. 2005. Singularity Sky. London: Orbit.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith. 1976. “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem.” Monist 59: 204–217. 10.5840/monist197659224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walton, Jo. 2015. The Just City. London: Corsair.Google Scholar