Contributor(s)The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractNo one would save for retirement or slave away at clearing a field for herself, if she knew for certain that she would not live to enjoy the fruits of the labor. The point of many of our projects hangs on the assumption of our continued existence. Extending this commonsensical thought, Samuel Scheffler (2013) argues for the provocative thesis that the value of many of our activities depends on humanity in general surviving into the future beyond our own lives – in short, on our having what he calls a secular afterlife. We would be rightly demoralized if we knew that history would end after us. But how long, and what kind, must our afterlife be for us to flourish? In his critical response, Mark Johnston (2014) argues that an afterlife that matters must itself be flourishing, which results in a kind of Ponzi scheme: the value of every life in history hangs on the infinite continuation of humanity. Otherwise the whole structure will collapse when we reach the last generation, which cannot flourish without an afterlife of its own. In this note, I will develop an independently plausible version of afterlifism that avoids this objection. While the full significance of many of our activities tacitly presupposes a realistic prospect of making a difference to future lives, future flourishing is neither necessary nor sufficient for our own flourishing.