Moral Responsibility and Future Selves

[Passer Outre]

Setting aside the metaphysical question for the time being, I'd like to discuss who we are now (or in the past) as opposed to some future self and the moral implications. This is some of that psychological-philosophical coffee house crap so many people hate, but I find it fascinating.

Take a for instance. Rob (version A) and Rob +20 years (version B) and Rob +50 years (version C). Even in our daily talk, we say "I'm not the same person I was," but we usually make it tongue-in-cheek. The argument becomes one of how psychologically related Version A is or can be to Version C. It's unimportant to most people, who don't realize it, but when one is told not to smoke or drink or read too porn, etc., he or she is actually being fed a version of dualist/Cartesian thinking--that the you now (Version A) is actively working (by smoking, etc.) to do harm to you in 50 years (Version C). What responsibilities do I have (Version A) to a future self (Version C) who may or may not resemble me in fundamentally important ways?

One of the most interesting arguments is about psychological continuity. That it is the psychological continuity between Version A and Version C which actually defines selfhood and "sameness." For example, let's say Version A gets a railroad spike through the head and his or her personality changes 180 degrees--is Version B the same person? Most of us would say no--which relates, I think, the prominence we place upon mentalist states.

So, Version A is smoking and drinking, thereby potentially damning Version C. Should Version A be morally culpable for anything that happens to Version C and, by extension, should it be someone else's job to stop Version A from committing this ethical "crime" against his or her future self?
Great forum, by the way. Glad I found it.

[boagie]

"Life must be lived forward looking but can only be understood backward looking." Oh if one could work it backwardly,all the pain and suffering which might be avoided.I certainly feel compassion for the poor young man of yesteryear. Welcome Passer Outre to the community.I shall reply to your post in earnest a little later. That young man give me arthristis!!

[Pythagorean]

Passer Outre: You ask: "...should it be someone else's job to stop Version A from committing this ethical "crime" against his or her future self? "

I think it depends upon discovering the objective value of the alleged crime, which of course is an impossibility. But if we could imagine a perspective of eternal human norms we could perhaps carve out a sort of grace zone for ordinary vices. Because if it becomes fashionable to smoke again in 50 years then upon what criteria do we then punish the offender today? The law, it seems, is organic. That's the shortcoming of law and custom, that it stems from the enduring moralizations of the people.

Also, the longer people live the greater the burden that is placed upon the health care system. Societies with a rapidly expanding aged population can come to financial ruin leading to economic depression and widespread poverty. In such a case it is the untenable preservation of health which can produce the worst effects for the future of the nation as a whole.

But, then maybe I'm just feeling guilty towards my future self because Im a smoker--

[boagie]

Pythagorean,Passer Outre,

Excellent points Pythagorean,"The law, it seems, is organic. That's the shortcoming of law and custom, that it stems from the enduring moralizations of the people.'

I think your'e response may be a conditioned one,no offense intended as who is not.When one comes from a culture who's main myth is the intigrity of the individual,as in self-reliant,self-determineing this idea might seem an offense,perhaps threatening.

I am thinking of Schopenhaur's similtaneous ariseing,where everything arises in relation to everything else,you by your mere existence condition and structure my life and I by merely being structure yours.It is similar to the Hindu net of gems.In this net of gems every gem is reflected in the other gems,an imaginative way of discribing the context we find ourselves in.In Schopenhaur's ariseing you cannot hold others responsiable for your amor fata[fate]and they cannot hold you responsiable,so context pretty much has it way,on a less than conscious level.That would be the myth of the individual but should not culture,the group be held accountable,should not context be conscious.When nature is your context you cannot speak of the consciousness of nature,but,did not society,civilization arise as a response to the indifference of nature.

Still I think it a dangerous thing to control to greatly the human will,in the past it has lead to stignation.Passer Outre's point may be more clear when we consider it in generational terms.With the state of the environment can we afford not to consider a generation yet come,do we not have responsiblity for what will be the future.It would seem that peoples of the world although the context of todays individual does not have consiousness,and so will not own up to its responsiablity.We in our youth have little in the way of consiousness---odd exceptions,and so will not own up to our responsiablity to our future self.So it is left to context in its unconsious way to determine our fate.What I am saying is yes context must become more conscious in a effort to make the individual conscious and thus responsiable and accountable,it is only through the individual consciousness that the context will become conscious,a recipocal play here----no? Yes,the individual needs to feel some responsiablity toward a future self but that will only happen in a conscious context. I am going back to my room now.

[Victor Eremita]

The question you've gotta ask yourself is, if Superman became a supervillain, can the Justice League go back in time and stop Superman from becoming a supervillain?

I think we all know what the answer is.

[Bones-O!]

Well, first of all, does A (now) have any moral responsibility to A (now)? Are we assuming so?