Thank you for this thoughtful discussion. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I don't have any settled views or real arguments (unfortunately) on this matter, but one thing I've been thinking of is to consider what happens w/ intergenerational replacement when people in the older generation die. They are as you say not fungible t…
Thank you for this thoughtful discussion. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I don't have any settled views or real arguments (unfortunately) on this matter, but one thing I've been thinking of is to consider what happens w/ intergenerational replacement when people in the older generation die. They are as you say not fungible tokens, they leave certain causal traces and they leave certain legacies (e.g., their intentions, policies they put in place, certain final wishes). The current generation can honor those things, or alternatively, they can try to rid themselves of burdensome past things the previous generation installed. Still, this downstream causation creates an asymmetry between the newly-created person (say, the baby in your example) and the people already existing (the aging parents).
In cultures where we feel strong obligations to past generations--e.g. some Indigenous societies, Confucian cultures--those earlier-gen traces can become deeply entrenched and very strong. I find it a separate interesting issue how strong we should weigh those ideas, wishes, values of earlier generations. We can get weighed down by them. On the other hand, it can be valuable (and by doing it, we sort of reassure ourselves there will be a chance we will not be "erased" the moment we die.)
As you say, sometimes the new life we welcome outweighs the value of keeping the old. Not because we are fungible and replaceable, but because (in my naturalistic pic where you can skip rather easily from "is" into "ought") this is just how it is and should be. I draw a lot of comfort walking in a park nearby and seeing dead trees lie there. They used to remove them, now they let them lie and you can see mushrooms grow on them. Ideally, one's legacy is like this: not erased, not fungible, but fertile ground for the future. The future deserves a place and deserves a shot, and should not feel overtly weighed down by the past.
I (no philosophical background) feel that you're touching on something important here with the NECESSARILY socially contextualised existence/value of people.
Thank you for this thoughtful discussion. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I don't have any settled views or real arguments (unfortunately) on this matter, but one thing I've been thinking of is to consider what happens w/ intergenerational replacement when people in the older generation die. They are as you say not fungible tokens, they leave certain causal traces and they leave certain legacies (e.g., their intentions, policies they put in place, certain final wishes). The current generation can honor those things, or alternatively, they can try to rid themselves of burdensome past things the previous generation installed. Still, this downstream causation creates an asymmetry between the newly-created person (say, the baby in your example) and the people already existing (the aging parents).
In cultures where we feel strong obligations to past generations--e.g. some Indigenous societies, Confucian cultures--those earlier-gen traces can become deeply entrenched and very strong. I find it a separate interesting issue how strong we should weigh those ideas, wishes, values of earlier generations. We can get weighed down by them. On the other hand, it can be valuable (and by doing it, we sort of reassure ourselves there will be a chance we will not be "erased" the moment we die.)
As you say, sometimes the new life we welcome outweighs the value of keeping the old. Not because we are fungible and replaceable, but because (in my naturalistic pic where you can skip rather easily from "is" into "ought") this is just how it is and should be. I draw a lot of comfort walking in a park nearby and seeing dead trees lie there. They used to remove them, now they let them lie and you can see mushrooms grow on them. Ideally, one's legacy is like this: not erased, not fungible, but fertile ground for the future. The future deserves a place and deserves a shot, and should not feel overtly weighed down by the past.
I (no philosophical background) feel that you're touching on something important here with the NECESSARILY socially contextualised existence/value of people.