# How far in the future does morality stop mattering? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584 "2008-08-19T19:15:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2008, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/21 "2008-08-19T21:47:16Z")
[QUOTE=Laudenum] **Mles** : If one person had the disease, but if they survived the disease would spread, would you not take action to stop the deaths of millions (although tbh, the person in question would most likely kill themselves if that was the case). [/QUOTE] “Take Action”? Quarantine, sure. Kill? I don’t have the stones. If someone came to me and told me that they were a time traveler, and I was destined to kill millions with some “super flu”, I’d think they were nuts… Godwinism time: feel free to skip the next two paragraphs, if such activities annoy you. The Nazi’s claimed (without real evidence) that Jews “tainted” their (German) society, both socially and through “poor genes”. Therefore, if they removed the Jews, future Germans would be “stronger” both socially and biologically. They used this to justify the roundups and mass killings. The only difference between your scenario (ebola that will kill millions sometime in the future) and the Nazi viewpoint was that the Nazi’s had a subjective value system of “preferential” genetic and sociological qualities that they felt needed “protecting/preserving”, while a disease is a naturally evolved disaster in the making. Your assuming that the ends justify the means. Should we waterboard to find the ticking bomb? Other examples abound… ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2008, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/22 "2008-08-19T21:53:32Z")
Thanks, **Der Trihs**. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/23 "2008-08-19T21:55:51Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] The Nazi’s claimed (without real evidence) that Jews “tainted” their (German) society, both socially and through “poor genes”. Therefore, if they removed the Jews, future Germans would be “stronger” both socially and biologically. They used this to justify the roundups and mass killings. The only difference between your scenario (ebola that will kill millions sometime in the future) and the Nazi viewpoint was that the Nazi’s had a subjective value system of “preferential” genetic and sociological qualities that they felt needed “protecting/preserving”, while a disease is a naturally evolved disaster in the making. Your assuming that the ends justify the means. Should we waterboard to find the ticking bomb? Other examples abound… [/QUOTE] I always thought that the Nazi’s were using that as an excuse but thats a different thread. I know that you noted the Godwinism, but unless you believe that the Nazi’s truely thought that they were saving more innocents by killings people now, the comparison isn’t very valid. Also this is Great debates. Where we debate things. I am in many ways asking the waterboarding question, but I’m adding a time element as well. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2008, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/24 "2008-08-19T22:03:15Z")
[QUOTE=Laudenum] I always thought that the Nazi’s were using that as an excuse but thats a different thread. I know that you noted the Godwinism, but unless you believe that the Nazi’s truely thought that they were saving more innocents by killings people now, the comparison isn’t very valid. [/quote] Some didn’t buy into it, but used it as a convienient excuse, I am sure. I also beilieve that most hardcore Nazis truly felt that they were being “Harsh/hard now” to preserve their way of life. How is that any way different from your example of killing some (a thousand I think you said) to preserve other’s in the future? > [@](#): > > Also this is Great debates. Where we debate things. I am in many ways asking the waterboarding question, but I’m adding a time element as well. You added a twist. The “time traveler certainty”. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/25 "2008-08-19T22:30:02Z")
The problem with “time traveler certainty” is that it doesn’t really include knowledge of both options - the time traveler only _knows_ what will happen if you _don’t_ kill the people. He’s _speculating_ that if you kill the original 1000 carriers before they spread it, things will be hunky-dory in the future, but he doesn’t actually know. Maybe one of the dudes you’ll kill has a descendent who saved the grandfather of a guy who prevented the world from becoming a permanent living hell. He doesn’t know that, and neither do you - so I wouldn’t gamble. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/26 "2008-08-19T23:19:55Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] The problem with “time traveler certainty” is that it doesn’t really include knowledge of both options - the time traveler only _knows_ what will happen if you _don’t_ kill the people. He’s _speculating_ that if you kill the original 1000 carriers before they spread it, things will be hunky-dory in the future, but he doesn’t actually know. Maybe one of the dudes you’ll kill has a descendent who saved the grandfather of a guy who prevented the world from becoming a permanent living hell. He doesn’t know that, and neither do you - so I wouldn’t gamble. [/QUOTE] I agree. Also, with a time machine, what’s the rush? You have all the time in the world to come up with a cure, go back in time, and cure the disease at the moment it strikes the first few victims. You shouldn’t have to conclude that mass homicide is the only answer. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2008, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/27 "2008-08-20T07:05:24Z")
“Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never Compromise” All this presupposes that the traveller hasn’t already altered the future just by coming here, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2008, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/28 "2008-08-20T07:54:04Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] **In the abstract** , yes you kill them. **In reality** , no you don’t. Why ? Because realistically, that scenario isn’t going to happen. It requires too many unlikely constraints; realistically, there’d be another way. And, also realistically, few people would trust the word of or evidence given by someone offering such a devil’s bargain. [/QUOTE] I agree completely, except to add that perhaps, in the abstract, you either kill them, or stand on your firmly-held principles, no matter what, and refuse to kill them even if it results in the destruction of the known universe. But either way, the abstract is, as you say, nothing like the real world, which is why these sorts of hypothetical dilemma are useless. Actually, a training/practice exercise or thought experiment that specifically bears no relation to reality is _worse than useless_. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/29 "2008-08-20T16:10:48Z")
What if the ebola is acid glue and the birds are Hitler? Huh? What then? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/30 "2008-08-20T16:13:45Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] A character created in _Star Trek : Voyager_ via transporter malfunction, due to two people being fused together. In order for them to live again s separate people, he has to die - or be unmade, whichever term you prefer. [/QUOTE] Bad example. Tuvix was murdered by Janeway, who, as we all know, was both evil and insane. Any moral action she takes is thus suspect. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/31 "2008-08-20T16:23:13Z")
Also, is the time traveler able to guarantee that in killing the 1000 you are not killing someone whose offspring would save the human race at some time in the traveler’s future? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2008, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/32 "2008-08-20T18:23:28Z")
[QUOTE=Laudenum] I suppose that I just want to know (among other things) if people consider people who live far in the future to be equal to people alive now. [/QUOTE] No, they’re not equal. If we kill 1000 people right now they’re really dead. But we have no way to accurately predict the far future. Maybe those 5 billion will die and maybe they won’t. Maybe the space squids will show up and save us, in which case the 1000 we killed will have died in vain. ---
**Author:** ![Buran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Buran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buran)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2008, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/33 "2008-08-21T11:15:07Z")
[QUOTE=Laudenum] **1. This is going to happen in about a weeks time.** Most people would say that they would kill the thousand to save the 5 billion. True liberals won’t, (and Catholics), but everyone else probably will. [/QUOTE] Why do you specify Catholics? Not trying to start an argument, just wondering. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2008, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/34 "2008-08-21T11:32:52Z")
[QUOTE=Buran] Why do you specify Catholics? Not trying to start an argument, just wondering. [/QUOTE] I’m gonna guess it’s a reference to their “sanctity of life” beliefs. I may be wrong, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2008, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/35 "2008-08-21T13:25:43Z")
[QUOTE=Buran] Why do you specify Catholics? Not trying to start an argument, just wondering. [/QUOTE] Last time I checked (I was raised Catholic but have been lapsed since childhood) the Catholic Church put a huge emphasis on not killing anyone, even if it preserved ones own life (but self-defence was ok if I recall). For those of you questioning how good a scenario it is - yeh it sucks. It was a daydream. I still think that its a good question. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2008, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/36 "2008-08-21T15:58:26Z")
I would have to know what was in it for me. Yes, I’m just selfish that way. ---
**Author:** ![tirial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@tirial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tirial)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/37 "2008-08-22T14:27:31Z")
I wouldn’t kill them in any of the cases. The future is a possibility but the present is reality. Real, actual, lives are worth more than vague possibilities. Besides, someone showing up, claiming to be a time traveller and saying you have to kill 1000 people has an immediate credibility problem. By the way, in case c) don’t you have time to track down the people in question and show them the overwhelming proof that every single person descended from them will die horribly of a disease linked to their genetics? I think under those circumstances most people would agree to be sterilised. (Thought prompted by the abortion counselling ads google is displaying at the bottom.) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2008, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/38 "2008-08-23T21:41:29Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] What if the ebola is acid glue and the birds are Hitler? Huh? What then? [/QUOTE] Then I picture the remake of the [Ducktators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ducktators) as directed by Quentin Tarantino. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2008, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/39 "2008-08-23T22:36:53Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Then I picture the remake of the [Ducktators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ducktators) as directed by Quentin Tarantino. 🙂 [/QUOTE] I cannot recommend [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=289696) highly enough to anyone who likes goofy hypotheticals. Plus it’s notable for having been closed, reopened and closed again. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584/40 "2008-08-24T00:59:59Z")
Here’s a counter-hypothetical. Say there’s an emerging threat which will cause a certain amount of lost lives and output in the future. We have estimates of this damage, but they are wide - and asymmetric. That is, there is a small chance of extraordinarily large damages. (Yes, I have global warming in mind.) ## Well, the rational will want to invest _something_ to avert possible catastrophe. But how much? Or rather, in this context, how much should we raise or lower that investment given that future damages will be absorbed by future generations, those whom we don’t even know? Now businessmen make investment decisions all the time: they invest if the rate of return of their projects exceeds a [hurdle rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurdle_rate), which in turn is related to the cost of financing for the firm. In the public policy context the analogue would be the [social discount rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_discount_rate): it is positive if we care less about future generations and negative if we care more. IMHO, the social discount rate should be positive: future generations will incur the damages from today’s pollution, but they will also benefit from higher technology. Indeed, I’d set the social discount rate equal to something like per capita economic growth. That way, any damages done to the future are adjusted for the gifts of new technology that they will possess. I imagine that others might deflate the future by a greater amount. As it happens, those who substitute in market rates of return for the social discount rate can make all manner of social problems go away: if you care little about future generations (or your own future in certain contexts), there’s little sense in caring about global warming and the like. (I’ll leave it someone else to uncover the sleight of hand in the preceding paragraph.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-in-the-future-does-morality-stop-mattering/460584.md?page=3)