I don’t think I see many arguments about caring for future people’s weird and unsympathetic specific demands. Certainly many would argue for caring about existence and quantity of future people. Many would also abstractly care about “quality of life” or even “happiness” of future people.
Even to the extent that caring is similar, there’s a HUGE asymmetry in control. Things we do can affect the experiences (or existence) of future people. Things we do can NOT affect anything about past people.
The argument wasn’t about sympathy, and Utilitarianism also doesn’t care about whether you personally like those people.
You also don’t control anybody in all those acausal trade scenarios, and these are still useful ways to coordinate or at least discuss whether they work.
The amount of asymmetry sure plays a role but doesn’t invalidate the argument but just weighs it.
Why the caps? I think the OP’s view gets people emotional, and emotion distracts from appreciating reasonable observations.
I don’t think I see many arguments about caring for future people’s weird and unsympathetic specific demands. Certainly many would argue for caring about existence and quantity of future people. Many would also abstractly care about “quality of life” or even “happiness” of future people.
Even to the extent that caring is similar, there’s a HUGE asymmetry in control. Things we do can affect the experiences (or existence) of future people. Things we do can NOT affect anything about past people.
The argument wasn’t about sympathy, and Utilitarianism also doesn’t care about whether you personally like those people.
You also don’t control anybody in all those acausal trade scenarios, and these are still useful ways to coordinate or at least discuss whether they work.
The amount of asymmetry sure plays a role but doesn’t invalidate the argument but just weighs it.
Why the caps? I think the OP’s view gets people emotional, and emotion distracts from appreciating reasonable observations.