contractualist OP t1_j9hqt1g wrote
Reply to comment by Purely_Theoretical in What Morality is Not (and why it's not the Repugnant Conclusion, Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism) by contractualist
It wouldn’t give them the right to have gains preserved for them. That’s not a right I have heard from any libertarian theory. So long as the lockean proviso is met, there is no duty to benefit the future. And future people wouldn’t accept such a lottery.
Purely_Theoretical t1_j9hslce wrote
That paper is proof you are wrong about the lockean proviso and wrong in your conclusion.
contractualist OP t1_j9hvdij wrote
Again, the paper just argues a Lockean proviso. Not the best deal future people would be getting.
Purely_Theoretical t1_j9hx34u wrote
The entire point of that paper is to give a libertarian justification for having concern for future generations. Namely it extends the lockean proviso to them. I summarized the paper in my first comment.
Therefore, libertarianism does not fail to account for future generations. This is your false claim and I have refuted it.
contractualist OP t1_j9hyfdl wrote
(Up to the lockean proviso, which I state in the post. This is too minimal to be substantive).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments