This seems right. Even those non-consequentialists who argue for keeping the human race in existence usually do so based on moral reasons and principles that are comparable in importance to all sorts of mundane reasons and could easily be trumped. Here’s John Leslie writing about such non-consequentialists:
Having thereby dismissed utilitarianism with suspicious ease, they find all manner of curious reasons for trying to produce benefits for posterity: benefits which anyone favouring mere maximization of benefits would supposedly be uninterested in producing! Some base their concern for future generations mainly on the need to respect the wishes of the dead. Others emphasize that love for one’s grandchildren can be logically linked to a wish that they too should have the joy of having grandchildren.
(The End of the World, p. 184 of the paperback edition )
Did you mean “As a consequentialist, I don’t think existential risk is the most important thing.” or ’m not a consequentialist, and I don’t think it comes out on top.”
This should depend very much on the system in question. Some people have already given examples of possible philosophical stances but it is worth nothing that even some religions can plausibly see existential risk as a problem. For example, in most forms of Judaism, saving lives is in general important and there’s also an injunction that one cannot rely on divine intervention for any purposes. So even if someone believes that there’s a nice deity who will make sure that existential risks don’t occur, there’s still an obligation to take active steps in that regard. This dates back to ideas which are directly in the Bible, such as the exchange between Mordechai and Esther in Chapter 4 of the eponymous book.
Similar remarks can probably be made at least for the other Abrahamic religions in various forms, although I don’t have the knowledge base and time to flesh out the details.
Indeed, it strikes me as non-controversial that it won’t come out on top.
This seems right. Even those non-consequentialists who argue for keeping the human race in existence usually do so based on moral reasons and principles that are comparable in importance to all sorts of mundane reasons and could easily be trumped. Here’s John Leslie writing about such non-consequentialists:
(The End of the World, p. 184 of the paperback edition )
Did you mean “As a consequentialist, I don’t think existential risk is the most important thing.” or ’m not a consequentialist, and I don’t think it comes out on top.”
I mean “If I were a non-consequentialist I don’t see why I would care much about existential risk”.
This should depend very much on the system in question. Some people have already given examples of possible philosophical stances but it is worth nothing that even some religions can plausibly see existential risk as a problem. For example, in most forms of Judaism, saving lives is in general important and there’s also an injunction that one cannot rely on divine intervention for any purposes. So even if someone believes that there’s a nice deity who will make sure that existential risks don’t occur, there’s still an obligation to take active steps in that regard. This dates back to ideas which are directly in the Bible, such as the exchange between Mordechai and Esther in Chapter 4 of the eponymous book.
Similar remarks can probably be made at least for the other Abrahamic religions in various forms, although I don’t have the knowledge base and time to flesh out the details.