Menu Expand

Sentiments and Posterity: Smith on Intergenerational Justice

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. Online First
  5. pp. 1–21

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
von Negenborn, C. Sentiments and Posterity: Smith on Intergenerational Justice. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 99999(), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.382492
von Negenborn, Colin "Sentiments and Posterity: Smith on Intergenerational Justice" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 99999., 2024, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.382492
von Negenborn, Colin (2024): Sentiments and Posterity: Smith on Intergenerational Justice, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 99999, iss. , 1-21, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.382492
Format
Download

Sentiments and Posterity: Smith on Intergenerational Justice

von Negenborn, Colin

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. (2024), Online First : pp. 1–21

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.382492
Language
Multiple languages
Pages
21
Keywords

Author Details

Colin von Negenborn, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg Von-Melle-Park 5 20146 Hamburg, Germany

References

  1. Asheim, G. B. 2010. “Intergenerational Equity.” Annual Review of Economics 2 (1): 197 – 222.  Google Scholar
  2. Baier, A. 1985. Postures of the Mind: Essays on Mind and Morals. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.  Google Scholar
  3. Beckerman, W. 2006. “The impossibility of a theory of intergenerational justice.” In The Handbook of Intergenerational Justice, edited by J. Tremmel, 53 – 71. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  4. Beckerman, W. and J. Pasek. 2001. Justice, Posterity, and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  5. Bentham, J. (1776) 1977. A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government. Edited by J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart. London: Athlone Press.  Google Scholar
  6. Berry, C. J. 2003. “Sociality and socialisation.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Scottish Enlightenment, edited by A. Broadie, 243 – 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  7. Binmore, K. G. 1994. Game Theory and the Social Contract, Volume 1: Playing Fair. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.  Google Scholar
  8. Binmore, K. G. 1998. Game Theory and the Social Contract, Volume 2: Just Playing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.  Google Scholar
  9. Brännmark, J. 2016. “Future generations as rightholders.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (6): 680 – 98.  Google Scholar
  10. d’Aspremont, C. 2007. “Formal Welfarism and Intergenerational Equity.” In Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability, edited by J. Roemer and K. Suzumura, 113 – 30. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  11. de-Shalit, A. 1995. Why posterity matters: Environmental policies and future generations. Milton Park: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  12. Fleischacker, S. 2004a. A Short History of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  13. Fleischacker, S. 2004b. On Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  14. Forman-Barzilai, F. 2010. Adam Smith and the Circles of Sympathy: Cosmopolitanism and Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  15. Gosseries, A. 2008. “Theories of intergenerational justice: A synopsis.” Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society (SAPIENS) 1 (1): 61 – 71.  Google Scholar
  16. Griswold, J. and L. Charles. 1998. Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  17. Harsanyi, J. C. 1977. “Morality and the Theory of Rational Behavior.” Social Research 44 (4): 623 – 56.  Google Scholar
  18. Jonas, H. 1984. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  19. Knights, P. 2019. “Inconsequential Contributions to Global Environmental Problems: A Virtue Ethics Account.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (4): 527 – 45.  Google Scholar
  20. McCloskey, D. 2008. “Adam Smith, the Last of the Former Virtue Ethicists.” History of Political Economy 40 (1): 43 – 71.  Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, K. 2018. “The Claims of Future Persons.” Erkenntnis 83 (1): 43 – 59.  Google Scholar
  22. Norton, B. G. 2005. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  23. Ord, T. 2020. The precipice: Existential risk and the future of humanity. New York City: Hachette Books.  Google Scholar
  24. Page, E. A. 2007. “Intergenerational justice of what: Welfare, resources or capabilities?” Environmental Politics 16 (3): 453 – 69.  Google Scholar
  25. Parfit, D. 2017. “Future People, the Non-Identity Problem, and Person-Affecting Principles.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 45 (2): 118 – 57.  Google Scholar
  26. Passmore, J. A. 1974. Man’s responsibility for nature: Ecological problems and Western traditions. New York City: Scribner.  Google Scholar
  27. Ramsey, F. P. 1928. “A Mathematical Theory of Saving.” The Economic Journal 38 (152): 543 – 59.  Google Scholar
  28. Rawls, J. (1971) 1999. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  29. Roemer, J. and K. Suzumura. 2007. Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  30. Schmidtz, D. and J. Thrasher. 2014. “The Virtues of Justice.” In Virtues and Their Vices, edited by K. Timpe and C. A. Boyd, 59 – 64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  31. Sen, A. 2002. “Open and Closed Impartiality.” The Journal of Philosophy 99 (9): 445 – 69.  Google Scholar
  32. Sen, A. 2006. “What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice?” The Journal of Philosophy 103 (5): 215 – 38.  Google Scholar
  33. Smith, A. (1759) 1982. The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS), Glasgow Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  34. Solow, R. M. 1991. “Sustainability: An economist’s perspective.” In Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings, edited by R. Dorfman and N. S. Dorfman, 179 – 87. New York City: Norton.  Google Scholar
  35. Steiner, H. and P. Vallentyne. 2009. “Libertarian Theories of Intergenerational Justice.” In Intergenerational Justice, edited by A. Gosseries and L. H. Meyer, 50 – 76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  36. Thrasher, J. 2015. “Adam Smith and the Social Contract.” The Adam Smith Review 8: 195 – 216.  Google Scholar
  37. Weiss, E. B. 1990. “Our Rights and Obligations to Future Generations for the Environment.” The American Journal of International Law 84 (1): 198 – 207.  Google Scholar
  38. Williston, B. 2015. The Anthropocene Project: Virtue in the Age of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  39. Wissenburg, M. 2006. “Global and Ecological Justice: Prioritising Conflicting Demands.” Environmental Values 15 (4): 425 – 39.  Google Scholar
  40. Witztum, A. 2023. “Endogenous ethics: Smith’s real contribution to the Enlightenment.” In Adam Smith and Modernity, edited by A. Burgio, 193 – 210. London: Routledge.  Google Scholar

Abstract

In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith lays out an account of ethics based on reflected passions towards our neighbours. I argue that this account can inform theories of intergenerational justice. Existing approaches implicitly focus on claims of justice between generations, not individuals. Instead, following Smith, we should think of each individual situated in her spatio-temporal neighbourhood. Relations between neighbours take the form of intergenerational sentiments. Reflection on these sentiments then allows us to identify due claims of justice. On this account, individuals are not just members of their respective generation, but also of their intertemporal community.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Colin von Negenborn: Sentiments and Posterity: Smith on Intergenerational Justice 1
1. Introduction 1
2. The Many Faces of Intergenerational Justice 3
2.1 Consequentialist Approaches and the Two Horns of a Dilemma 4
2.2 The Deontological Approach and a Nonexistence Issue 5
3. Proximity vs. Posterity 6
3.1 Proximity First: the Synchronic Approach 7
3.2 A Diachronic Alternative 8
4. Moral Sentiments Across Generations 9
4.1 Justice, Simpliciter 11
4.2 Distributive Justice 13
4.3 Justice, Intergenerationally 15
4.4 Sympathy and the Community 16
5. Conclusion 17
References 19

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.