Skip to content
Analiza i Egzystencja
71 (2025)
OpenAlex

For the whole journal, according to OpenAlex.

Citations
237
Publications
481
H-index
6
I10-index
2
Mean citedness (2 years)
0.17
Citations received by year
Journal citation chart. Exact values are available in the table below. 2017: 4 2018: 13 2019: 12 2020: 17 2021: 27 2022: 31 2023: 31 2024: 33 2025: 36 2026: 19 2017 2026
Show data table
Citations received by year
YearPublicationsCitations
2017254
20182313
20192312
20202017
20212127
20222631
20232531
20242633
20252536
20262019

Data retrieved:

What do these numbers mean?

Publications and citations cover records linked to this journal in OpenAlex. H-index is the largest number h of publications with at least h citations each. I10-index counts publications cited at least 10 times. The chart shows citations received in each year; the current year is incomplete. Coverage may differ from WNUS and other services.

The 2-year mean is an OpenAlex metric. It is not the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.

View in OpenAlex (new tab)
Google Scholar
Find in Google Scholar (new tab)

Międzypokoleniowe więzi w argumencie suwakowym


(Intergenerational bonds in the zipper argument)
DOI: 10.18276/aie.2025.71-06
Cite

The full text is available

ISSN:1734-9923
eISSN:2300-7621
Authors: Wojciech Lewandowski ORCID
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Keywords: zipper argument future generations intergenerational justice parental reasons
Issue / book publication date:2025
Page range:22 (109-130)
OAI-PMH:Metadata
CC BY-SA Open Access DOAJ ERIH PLUS Scopus Diamond Discovery Hub
QR code

Abstract

The zipper argument derives long-term intergenerational obligations from duties between adjacent generations. It is criticized for its limitations due to its reliance on assumptions from justice theory and its focus on agent-neutral obligations towards the immediately following generation. Modifications of this argument based on generational agent-relative parental reasons face another group of challenges. This paper aims to address these limitations by modifying the zipper argument to emphasize the agent-relative non-parental aspects of intergenerational relationships. It proposes a modification based on the moral reasons not to put our successors in a position of moral conflict. The paper argues that this modification, while not providing a complete answer to all intergenerational ethical problems, can supplement more prevalent justifications for intergenerational obligations.

PDF

Download PDF
Preview PDF

Open PDF

Bibliography (32)
  1. Brighouse, H., Swift, A. (2014). Family Values: The Ethics of Parent–Child Rela- tionships. Princeton–Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  2. Carey, B. (2023). Circumventing the Non-identity Problem. Philosophia, 51 (3), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00589-7.
  3. Cordelli, C. (2015). Justice as Fairness and Relational Resources. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23 (1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12036.
  4. De-Shalit, A. (1995). Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations (Transferred to digital print). London–New York: Routledge.
  5. Fricke, C. (2011). What We Cannot Do to Each Other: On Forgiveness and Moral Vul- nerability. W: C. Fricke (red.), The Ethics of Forgiveness: A Collection of Essays (s. 51–68). New York–Abingdon: Routledge.
  6. Gardiner, S.M. (2011). A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Gheaus, A. (2016). The Right to Parent and Duties Concerning Future Genera- tions. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24 (4), 487–508.
  8. Gheaus, A., Meijers, T. (2025). Injustice without Victims or Arguments from Gene- rational Overlap?: A Reply to Gosseries on Non-Identity. Res Publica. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11158-024-09701-y.
  9. Goodin, R.E. (1985). Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of Our Social Respon- sibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Gosseries, A. (2001). What Do We Owe the Next Generation(s). Loyola of Los Ange- les Law Review, 35, 293.
  11. Gosseries, A. (2023). What is Intergenerational Justice? Cambridge, Oxford, New York, Boston: Polity.
  12. Hubin, D.C. (1976). Justice and Future Generations. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6 (1), 70–83.
  13. Humphreys, S. (2022). Against Future Generations. European Journal of Interna- tional Law, 33 (4), 1061–1092. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac068
  14. Madonna, F. (2022). Vulnerability and Future Generations: A Problem of Altru- ism? European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2 (6), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejsocial.2022.2.6.323.
  15. Mazor, J. (2010). Liberal Justice, Future People, and Natural Resource Conservation. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38, 380–408.
  16. Meijers, T. (2024). Zipper Arguments and Duties Regarding Future Generations. Poli- tics, Philosophy & Economics, 23 (2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1470594X231185143.
  17. Meijers, T., Timmer, D. (2025). Relational Egalitarianism, Future Generations, and Arguments from Overlap. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 28 (3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2025.2462362.
  18. Mogensen, A.L. (2022). The Only Ethical Argument for Positive δ? Partiality and Pure Time Preference. Philosophical Studies, 179 (9), 2731–2750. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11098-022-01792-8.
  19. Mulgan, T. (2001). A Minimal Test for Political Theories. Philosophia, 28 (1–4), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379781.
  20. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
  21. Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych (1945). Karta Narodów Zjednoczonych.
  22. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  23. Passmore, J.A. (1974). Man’s Responsibility for Nature: Ecological Problems and Western traditions. New York: Scribner.
  24. Rawls, J. (2005). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
  25. Routley, R., Routley, V. (1978). Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future. Inquiry, 21 (1–4), 133–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747808601840.
  26. Sanklecha, P. (2017). Our Obligations to Future Generations: The Limits of Inter- generational Justice and the Necessity of the Ethics of Metaphysics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47 (2–3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1282275.
  27. Tarsney, C. (2023). The Epistemic Challenge to Longtermism. Synthese, 201 (6), 195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04153-y.
  28. Thompson, J. (2013). Being in Time. W: C. Mackenzie, W. Rogers, S. Dodds (red.), Vulnerability (s. 162–178). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0007.
  29. Unruh, C.F. (2021). The Strings Attached to Bringing Future Generations into Exi- stence. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38 (5), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/ japp.12532.
  30. Walker, M.U. (2013). Moral Vulnerability and the Task of Reparations. W: C. Macken- zie, W. Rogers, S. Dodds (red.), Vulnerability (s. 110–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0005.
  31. Wiinikka-Lydon, J. (2020). “A Distress that Cannot Be Forgotten”: Imagina- tion, Injury, and Moral Vulnerability. Philosophy Today, 64 (3), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday2020107351.
  32. Vanderheiden, S. (2006). Conservation, Foresight, and the Future Generations Prob- lem. Inquiry, 49 (4), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740600831422.