Final Essay
Up to now, our ethics have usually influenced our relationships with people, including family members, students, and individuals who might be called together our spiritual culture. As if we have a larger “group” of human beings in our minds, we have yet limited our thoughts to those living in our time (Scheffler). This is the same with other moral philosophies that often appear to focus on living people’s moral duties to their contemporaries. Yet morally, we owe other facets of life to the future generation.
Most of the scientists believe that the planet is warming 4 degrees Fahrenheit every century because of our current reliance on fossil fuels. This may not seem much, but worldwide ice caps and glaciers at the polar regions are melting as well, and the worldwide sea level continues to rise at an astonishing pace. Unless these changes continue, the lowlands of the planet (including New York City) are gradually overrun, tropical diseases spread through today’s temperate areas, and significant droughts are projected to slash global food supplies (Gurmankin). Meanwhile, the industry currently generates additional tones, which will be tackled by future generations. As much as such patterns may not have a very major effect over us, they will undoubtedly affect people who live a few generations from now. Because we are capable of altering or at least growing these patterns, do we not have a moral duty for our future descendants to behave today? The same world that we influence today is the same environment that will stay for your life and future generations. Therefore, it is our responsibility to mitigate today’s problems for the future.
Here’s a fascinating example. First of all, let us presume that terrorists succeed in firing a nuclear weapon in some countries, killing millions of people. The terrorists have wronged these impoverished millions by every defensible moral standard because they have failed to threaten them. Of the example, both the perpetrators and those they are obligated to are contemporaries in this situation. However, let’s change the story a little now. The terrorists, this time, fired a nuclear warhead that will remain in orbit for two hundred years; only then will it crash on the world and destroy the country’s people. This would also be a denial of the right to life of these potential victims. It is practically meaningless whether the missile hits its target two centuries after it was launched. This is the terrorists’ responsibility not to harm people living two hundred years older than to hurt people now. After all, while the murder of millions of contemporaries is wrong, it seems unjust to say that today there was nothing wrong with doing anything that will destroy millions of people in the future. Dealing with the terrorists now will create a peaceful society in the future generation where there will be less destruction to be experienced by societies.
Many explanations can be given for believing that, while such duties are to someone, in particular, we have a moral duty to ensure the survival of future generations. It may be, for example, that our race itself is profoundly different from the principles of those who create it, we are obliged to maintain humanity. After all, while it may be unwanted to die, say, a dolphin, a bird, a tree, or a tree, many people believe they die out and that they will not be replaced permanently by any dolphin, or any bird or tree species. Species tend to have importance in their very own right, and their importance is just because they’re not significant in the environment or because people think that they are useful. But if it is possible to tell that about specific animals, it can also be said for humans.
Moreover, we have a moral duty to protect it from extinction as part of our intrinsic value. Natural law theory provides a framework for reasoning along these lines. In compliance with natural law, our fundamental moral obligation is to preserve and comply with the natural order. This, in effect, contributes to responsibilities for the protection of life, for the reproduction, the restoration, the overall safety of the environment, the conservation of the natural ecosystem, and all the social situation. It reflects our fundamental sense that life itself is a positive thing; as such, it is the foundation of our duty to protect all facets of the natural world, not just the species of mankind (Nickless). Nevertheless, while natural law usually provides for responsibilities to ensure future lives, these responsibilities are not expressly applied to anyone.
In the sense of a challenge for future generations, human rights to a safe environment should be considered. The obligation to protect the world is extended to all human beings, non-humans, and inanimate artifacts and applies to the coming generations. The responsibility is reflected in the principle of ‘intergenerational equity,’ whereby all members of the individual generation, as a group, inherit from previous generations, both as recipients and as guardians, the obligation to pass this legacy on to future generations. This right is to profit from and grow this natural and cultural heritage, which is inseparably connected to the obligation to preserve it so that it is not in a much worse state than previous generations have earned it (Teng).
Religious and ethical principles support this concept of intergenerational equity, and by various international documents which, in present society, begin with the united nations charter, with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its two international Conventions. As well as multiple conferences and declarations are dealing with human dignity, value, and development. As we talk about the human race, we talk about it as it happens and as it will be today and tomorrow. Such international instrumentation extended to all coming generations as an obligation that receives some support from international human rights law and is seen as an established standard of customary international law. Therefore, it has to be necessarily inferred from an intergenerational aspect.
A second view would be that the absolute and explicit acknowledgment of the obligation to protect the rights of generations to come and the values required to carry out this obligation should not be limited to customary legislation, but the treaty. Just like the previous generations were expected to protect the future, so we owe the new generation moral obligation. The things we make today impact other people in a favorable climate. For example, if we pollute the atmosphere, it will be impossible for the future generation to live in this climate. We have the responsibility to preserve and protect the environment in the future (Scheffler).
With an improved education system by the current generation, the future will be bright, just like the pat generation fought hard for a better education than we are currently enjoying. The generation that is not in existence is dependent on the current generation to make amends to the educational sector in favor of the future generation.
In the medical sector, we need to preserve the tree species of medical importance. The current generation is always extracting the trees for the treatment of various diseases. By preserving the trees, they will be used by the coming generations. Improving the medical labs for researches will help the future generation to be able to deal with various pandemics better and faster than the current generation. The globalization measures will also help in the improvement of the economy by allowing free trade in various states. By boosting the economy, the future people will be able to enjoy free trading boundaries globally.
We are deeply aware that our environmental degradation will potentially have a significant impact on the potential quality of life. Therefore, moral obligations towards future citizens help explain conservationist policies. The past had our interests at their heart, and it should not be different for the case of the future generation too.
References
Gurmankin, Daniel. Sustainability and the Welfare of Future Generations. Diss. Central European University, 2018.
Nickless, Edmund. “Resourcing future generations: A contribution by the Earth Science Community.” Natural Resources Research 27.2 (2018): 143-158.
Scheffler, Samuel. Why worry about future generations?. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Teng, F. Moral Responsibilities to Future Generations: A Comparative Study on Human Rights Theory and Confucianism. Diss. Utrecht University, 2018.