What is our interest in continuing to live? And, beyond that, how do we explain the nearly universal interest that future generations will live after us? Some philosophers would argue that the reason to continue to live and to ensure that there will be future generations of humans is to maximize happiness. Classical utilitarianism gives the most powerful argument for this view.  But a number of philosophers have challenged the idea that happiness is all that matters. 

This objection has been put in several ways. Susan Wolf has argued that our interest in living meaningful lives is important and not reducible to increasing happiness. What makes lives meaningful is not just the quality of our experiences, but also being connected to the world outside our experiences in ways we find valuable. For example, someone whose life was dedicated to raising money eventually to build a library in her town would not be satisfied if others arranged to make her believe the library would be built while spending the money she raised in other ways. 

Similarly, Samuel Scheffler has argued that we care about the future because we care that the projects to which we are devoted will continue after we die. Do you find these objections persuasive, or do you think that the classical (hedonistic) utilitarian can reply to them? How does your thinking about this issue relate to the debate about Nuronium or Polixate?

Next Section »