WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: future-generations-on-a-par, even though the last is possible, it is hard to imagine that any society at our time or in the future could accept the destruction of basic environmental living conditions challenges (M.H.) it is possible that in the future "large parts of the population lose interest in economic goods and turn to ascetic pursuits, or where rich nations use higher productivity to develop fiendish new weapons, or where people come to love the altered landscape of the warmer world" (693), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes "The morals of major religions—present and future—might clash with the utilitarian calculus of Ramsey growth theories." (693), the principle in the first sentence is identical with Stern's principle. The second sentence is not justified defeats (M.H.) "Quite another ethical stance would be to hold that each generation should leave at least as much total societal capital (tangible, natural, human, and techno- logical) as it inherited. This would admit a wide array of time discount rates., "It is, of course, possible that people actually do place less value on the welfare of future generations, simply on the grounds that they are more distant in time. But it is hard to see any ethical justification for this." (31) supports (Stern 2006b) "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), Even if we accept the first sentence, the second one is wrong because it takes only monetary and technological capital into account, but not natural or environmental capital. If this were included, the "Rawlsean" principle might well lead to the same result as Stern's defeats (M.H.) Another "alternative would be a Rawlsian perspective that societies should maximize the economic well-being of the poorest generation. The ethical implication of this policy would be that current consumption should increase sharply to reflect the projected future improvements in productivity." (692), this ethical principle is not justified (693) objects (Nordhaus 2007) "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes "Quite another ethical stance would be to hold that each generation should leave at least as much total societal capital (tangible, natural, human, and techno- logical) as it inherited. This would admit a wide array of time discount rates., "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes Another "alternative would be a Rawlsian perspective that societies should maximize the economic well-being of the poorest generation. The ethical implication of this policy would be that current consumption should increase sharply to reflect the projected future improvements in productivity." (692), we do not know the preferences of future generations (693) therefore (ArgScheme: modus tollens AU=Nordhaus) this ethical principle is not justified (693), the first sentence is acceptable. Unacceptable, however, is the idea that it is only "the baton of capital" that we have to hand over to the next generations. The same is true for the basic environmental living conditions defeats (M.H.) "this generation cannot decide for or tie the hands of future generations. Instead, each generation is in the position of one member of a relay team, handing off the baton of capital to the next generation, and hoping that future generations behave sensibly and avoid catastrophic choices by dropping or destroying the baton." (693), it is possible that in the future "large parts of the population lose interest in economic goods and turn to ascetic pursuits, or where rich nations use higher productivity to develop fiendish new weapons, or where people come to love the altered landscape of the warmer world" (693) supports we do not know the preferences of future generations (693), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes "this generation cannot decide for or tie the hands of future generations. Instead, each generation is in the position of one member of a relay team, handing off the baton of capital to the next generation, and hoping that future generations behave sensibly and avoid catastrophic choices by dropping or destroying the baton." (693), whatever those differences may be, it should be absolutely clear that no society at our time or in the future could accept the destruction of basic environmental living conditions defeats (M.H.) in a pluralist and multicultural world there are "differing norms over space and time" (693), Rawls's principle refers to the "worst-off" within a given society; neither does it refer to injustice among different societies, nor to intergenerational justice defeats (M.H.) Another "alternative would be a Rawlsian perspective that societies should maximize the economic well-being of the poorest generation. The ethical implication of this policy would be that current consumption should increase sharply to reflect the projected future improvements in productivity." (692), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) supports it has not been shown that this ethical principle is better than alternative ethical principles, click on the small, bent arrow at the bottom right of this text box to get back to the Stern Review's main argumentation start here "the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own" (5), this ethical principle is justified only if we know the preferences of future generations therefore (ArgScheme: modus tollens AU=Nordhaus) this ethical principle is not justified (693), "alternative ethical perspectives are possible" so that we have to justify our choice (693) includes in a pluralist and multicultural world there are "differing norms over space and time" (693), The Debate about the Stern-Review and the Economics of Climate Change visualized according to the rules and conventions of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), this ethical principle is justified only if it has been shown that it is better than alternative ethical principles therefore (ArgScheme: modus tollens AU=Nordhaus interpreted) this ethical principle is not justified (693)