Example Of Argumentative Essay On The Futurity Problem
In essence, according to Gregory Kavka the pessimists view the future having extreme problems such as shortages of clean air, fossil fuels, food, and other resources, leading to cataclysmic results namely; decline in industrial output and human population in general. However, the optimists on their part believe that if presently undeveloped nations would undergo modernization then with probable technology the earth’s resources and environment will be well utilized to grow human population (Sikora & Brian 186). Therefore, it is from here that Kavka critically inquires whether it is a man’s moral obligation to prevent any catastrophe that is impeding by imposing strict limitations on pollution, population growth, and resource usage.
In principle, Kavka bases his arguments on the philosophy of the rich people being morally obligated to help the needy regardless of them being complete strangers (Sikora & Brian 186). Therefore, it would be selfish of the present generation to go around with that philosophy and refuse to make sacrifices for the sake of the future generations. Moreover, Kavka believes that the two scenarios are similar. In essence, today’s generation cannot demand the wealthy to offer aid to the poor, but then ignore helping the future generations by making sacrifices that ensure the earth is better for their survival.
Significantly, Kavka believes that there are reasons as to why today’s generation is ignorant of the future people’s interest in reference to those of present time individuals. For instance, present people distinguish themselves from future generations because the latter is yet to exist. Therefore, today’s generation makes arguments that people who are yet to live in the present time do not deserve aid or consideration. However, Kavka gives an informed opposition, citing present people’s assignment of importance on the need to plan for the satisfaction of a future desire (Sikora & Brian 188). In principle, as man does not attach any intrinsic significance to the timeline of the given desire, and then so should the time location of future people.
In essence, Kavka feels that another reason as to why present individuals do not care is because they are only, but ignorant of future people. Significantly, this is because future people are not here to promote their interests, and it is from such that present individuals do not place significance on their needs. However, Kavka refutes this train of thought explaining that future people’s needs are similar to ours (Sikora & Brian 189). Therefore, the things we require to survive such as air, water, and food will be the same it is utter insensitivity to try and claim not to know their needs. In principle, Kavka makes a good argument one of logical reasoning for if the present generation is to ensure that future people get the basic needs we demand for today then all their crucial desires would be fulfilled. Moreover, I concur with Kavka that to be ignorant of future people’s interests is similar to a young individual neglecting the interests and desires of old age because it is not yet time.
Principally, the contingency of future people in the sense that there is a probability they might never exist is another reason the present generation is ignorant of their needs. Moreover, their determinant to existence is how the present people act and decide. Significantly, the reasoning behind this notion is that when scarcity hits distributors of given resources tend to favor the existing customers rather than future ones. Therefore, the future customers depend on the distributor’s actions and decisions to attain the scarce resources. In essence, Kavka is against this idea since even if the prospective customer is unknown, he or she does not lose importance to the distributor and become less significant compared to the present one (Sikora & Brian 193). Similarly, future people cannot ignore so as to please the present generation and have it pollute all that the future people need nor deciding to limit next generation's population so the present individuals can fully enjoy the resources. Gregory Kavka is right in this argument stating a fact that many fail to comprehend that there is no morality in ignoring the happiness of another because of one’s selfish interests.
In essence, the reasoning of the present people's choice to refrain from reproducing so as to curb the population growth in the future is a decree that would subject future people to severe service shortage and loneliness. Furthermore, if such a plan is wholly executed, then there might not be a next generation to debate whether they were treated fairly or not. Significantly, Kavka believes that we all have a duty to care for our species’ survival. Moreover, human life should be preserved at all cost for it has value. Therefore, Kavka argues that if this principle is fundamental today and is viewed to be a moral obligation, then with future people possessing the same traits and lives as we do then they deserve the same moral obligation to be produced (Sikora & Brian 197). Similarly, with the species continuation comes the continuation and preservation of collective intellectual, artistic, and scientific accomplishment. Principally, this argument is correct for one cannot refuse to reproduce yet place significance and moral obligation in the continuity of the species.
Significantly, when a nation is starving, many people will tend to support that donor lend such people with food. In essence, this notion seems morally valid since the starving people exist and are in need of assistance. However, Kavka points out that by giving food one is, but only increase the population, hence chances of future people in the country starving becoming high (Sikora & Brian 199). On a similar note, such a country needs education and birth control for future people has the same rights, and their needs should be considered. Principally, Kava believes that it is logical to offer aid that only inhibits the population and not induce its expansion. Therefore, even if the move results in some people who would have been saved perishing for the sake of the future many, then it is morally okay. Gregory Kavka point of view is valid and realistic for one cannot be selfish not to care about protecting those born later from starvation just to prevent those existing today from it.
In essence, Gregory Kavka argues that all generations be it those that exist in the present and those that are to come in the future, have a right to live peacefully and happily on God’s green earth. Furthermore, Kavka cites John Locke’s proposition that all men morally equals in nature and should use the earth’s resources with such consideration of their counterparts. John Locke further argues that a generation should use the resources the earth offers without wasting them so as to leave the future generation well off like the present generation’s ancestors left them (Sikora & Brian 201). Therefore, Kavka supports this train of thought and believes that future people should be treated same in terms of their interests as present people are considered. Moreover, there is a need for population limitations, but not to an extreme that the survival of the species is threatened.
Principally, the man should learn to appreciate future people and preserve the environment for this generation for such individuals are nothing, but present generation’s offspring. In essence, it would be selfish to the highest degree to continue being ignorant of the needs of future people. Therefore, I wholeheartedly subscribe to Kavka train of thought in the need to take measures that will help preserve the planet for the future people’s sake. Gregory Kavka lays good argument with views that are hard to refute, but only concur and support his way of thinking.
Sikora, Richard I, and Brian Barry. Obligations to Future Generations. Philadelphia: Temple