Enough for the Future

Meyer, Lukas H.; Roser, Dominic

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282951.003.0009

Cited by 106 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…'Weak sufficientarianism' suggests it is important to improve the well-being of those people who are below the minimum threshold. 'Strong sufficientarianism' tells that absolute policy priority should be given to the improvement of the well-being of these people; the lower their welfare, the more important is the policy priority (Meyer and Roser 2009;Wolf 2009). …”

Section: Sufficientarianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present the case that traditional transport appraisal methods do not sufficiently capture the social dimensions of mobility and accessibility. However, understanding this is highly relevant for policymakers to understand the impacts of their transport decisions. These dimensions include the distribution of mobility and accessibility levels over particular areas or for specific population groups, as well as how this may affect various social outcomes, including their levels of participation, social inclusion and community cohesion. In response, we propose a method to assess the socially relevant accessibility impacts (SRAIs) of policies in some of these key dimensions. The method combines the use of underlying ethics principles, more specifically the theories of egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, in combination with accessibility-based analysis and the Lorenz curve and Gini index. We then demonstrate the method in a case study example. Our suggestion is that policymakers can use these ethical perspectives to determine the equity of their policies decisions and to set minimum standards for local transport delivery. This will help them to become more confident in the development and adoption of new decision frameworks that promote accessibility over mobility and which also disaggregate the costs and benefits of transport policies over particular areas or for specific under-served population groups.

show abstract

Section: Sufficientarianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prioritarians hold the view that benefiting people (increasing their utility level) matters less the better off those people are [13,14]. The risks of climate change would matter even less to sufficientarians, according to whom social benefits and burdens should be redistributed only in so far as redistribution is required to let people attain a sufficient level of well-being [14][15][16][17][18]. Similar views have been expressed by economists such as Baumol [19], according to whom:…”

Section: The Formal Principle Of Equalitymentioning

confidence: 90%

Intergenerational Justice: How Reasonable Man Discounts Climate Damage

Davidson

2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral philosophers and economists have evaluated the intergenerational problem of climate change by applying the whole gamut of theories on distributive justice. In this article, however, it is argued that intergenerational justice cannot imply the application of moral ideal theories to future generations. The formal principle of equality simply requires us to treat like cases as like. If intergenerational justice is to have any meaning, it would require future generations to receive the same treatment under the law and the same treatment from the authorities, as far as cases are like. In the context of climate change, the reasonable man standard from tort law is of particular relevance. There is no justification to handle pollution across generational boundaries according to norms which differ from the (international) laws for handling pollution across national borders. It is argued that this implies, for example, that a zero social rate of time preference should be used in cost-benefit analysis of climate policy: climate damage experienced by future generations should be discounted neither for their higher expected wealth, nor purely for their being remote.

show abstract

“…Up-limit leximin egalitarianism and prioritarian perspectives are non-individualistic. The prime objective of both is set on total wellbeing [40]), as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows a hypothetical example of wellbeing distribution among generations.…”

Section: The Cause Of Future Sufficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Back to the Future: The Potential of Intergenerational Justice for the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

Oliveira

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The establishment of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) bolstered momentum to achieve a sustainable future. Undeniably, the welfare of future generations is a fundamental value of sustainable development since the publication of the Brundtland report. Nevertheless, SDGs and their targets are meagre on intergenerational justice concerns. The 15-year target horizon of the SDGs might be beneficial for implementation reasons. However, such a short-term perspective is far from innocuous in justice terms. It jeopardises the establishment of long-term goals, which protect both present and future people. This article advocates for clearer stances on intergenerational justice. What type of distributive principles could and should dictate the present socio-economic development? Looking at intragenerational justice principles contained in SDGs does not provide a full answer since they express conflicting visions of what constitutes a fair development. Furthermore, a fair distribution of the development benefits and burdens among present and near future people does not necessarily guarantee the wellbeing of more distant generations. I propose an intergenerational sufficientarian perspective as a way of extending the beneficial impacts of SDGs to both close and distant future generations. Hopefully, it facilitates the translation of the SDGs into policies that promote fairer implementation strategies.

show abstract

Enough for the Future

Cited by 106 publications

References 37 publications

A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches

A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches

Intergenerational Justice: How Reasonable Man Discounts Climate Damage

Back to the Future: The Potential of Intergenerational Justice for the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About