rigorous
Counterradicalization Interventions. A Review of the Evidence
Research report 2022/1, 70 p. Counter-radicalization has become part and parcel of the counter-terrorism strategies of virtually every western nation. Most counter-radicalization efforts build on the a
POSTPONED: Matthew Adler: Person-Affecting Consequentialism: Equity-Regarding, Desert-Neutral, Repugnant
Research seminar with Matthew Adler, Duke UniversityREGISTERAbstract The philosophical literature on consequentialism regularly distinguishes between “person-affecting” and “impersonal” moral justifica
Discrimination and Future Generations
In: Mosquera, J. & O. Torpman (ed.),Studies on Climate Ethics and Future Generations vol. 6. Working Paper Series 2024:10–17 Abstract In this paper, I analyse whether the present generation’s choices. This has been tentatively suggested in both legal theory and philosophy; I review such suggestions briefly in section 1. However, a more rigorous analysis – outlining the concept, relevant grounds, and wrong-making features of discrimination, and applying these to future generations – is still lacking. To address this lacuna, I propose a theory of discrimination and analyse why it might seem to apply – yet ultimately fails to apply – to the differential treatment of future generations. More specifically, I propose a definition of discrimination (section 2.1) and an account of the moral wrongness of discrimination (section 2.2). I moreover explore the connection between discrimination and theories of social (in)justice (section 2.3). I then apply this theory to the problem of differential treatment of future generations. While discrimination may occur between collectives, such as generations (section 3.1), my analysis shows that the specific temporal status of future generations is not comparable to other grounds of discrimination, such as gender or race (section 3.2). Moreover, due the non-identity problem and the problem of lack of a “community of social meaning” between generations, future generations cannot be claimed to be subjected to worse treatment by the present generation (section 3.3). Hence, their differential treatment due to the present generation’s choices does not amount to discrimination. Section 4 concludes and outlines some upshots of my analysis.
