I don’t know who you’re arguing against, but you’re right that future lives have some value to me. I think you’re wrong in any model that excludes “to me” in any valuation mechanism. Values are not objective and independent of the evaluator.
The very serious debate is about the RATIO of value (to a given decision-maker) of a given current individual vs other current and possible future individuals. And the uncertainty of measurable welfare—it’s impossible to know what “welfare level 10″ even means. It’s very rare that you can press buttons with only positive or neutral effects.
I have to admit that I’ve never met someone in real life who makes that strong claim. Plenty make the much weaker claim that it’s much lower value to create future lives than to reduce current suffering. I personally don’t agree with that either—there’s no one-size-fits-all valuation of current or future entities.
I don’t know who you’re arguing against, but you’re right that future lives have some value to me. I think you’re wrong in any model that excludes “to me” in any valuation mechanism. Values are not objective and independent of the evaluator.
The very serious debate is about the RATIO of value (to a given decision-maker) of a given current individual vs other current and possible future individuals. And the uncertainty of measurable welfare—it’s impossible to know what “welfare level 10″ even means. It’s very rare that you can press buttons with only positive or neutral effects.
I am arguing against the people who hold the person-affecting view and think it isn’t good to create happy people.
I have to admit that I’ve never met someone in real life who makes that strong claim. Plenty make the much weaker claim that it’s much lower value to create future lives than to reduce current suffering. I personally don’t agree with that either—there’s no one-size-fits-all valuation of current or future entities.
Well there are lots of people who defend this is philosophy and lots of normal people who adopt the view.