Analiza i Egzystencja


ISSN: 1734-9923     eISSN: 2300-7621    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/aie.2025.71-06
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS  DOAJ  DOAJ

Issue archive / 71 (2025)
Międzypokoleniowe więzi w argumencie suwakowym
(Intergenerational bonds in the zipper argument)

Authors: Wojciech Lewandowski ORCID
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Keywords: zipper argument future generations intergenerational justice parental reasons
Whole issue publication date:2025
Page range:22 (109-130)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

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.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

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.