Philosophy Now Forum

Protecting fossils, ruins, etc. on behalf of people in the future by making them unavailable to interested people today is morally abhorrent. The interest of hpothetical future beings OUGHT never outweigh the interests of actually existing people now.

Could you give an example?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 7:00 pm Protecting fossils, ruins, etc. on behalf of people in the future by making them unavailable to interested people today is morally abhorrent. The interest of hpothetical future beings OUGHT never outweigh the interests of actually existing people now.

So who has refused you access to his fossils?

[quote=vegetariantaxidermy post_id=584855 time=1658439275 user_id=8006]
Could you give an example?
[/quote]

Sure. There's a hiking trail near here called Catherine Creek and there's a natural bridge section that's fenced off with a sign that says "Access prohibited to protect sacred site." or something similar. What if it's sacred to someone who wants access right now?! They've removed actually relevant access in favor of Future hypothetical value for people that don't even exist yet, and may never if the tyranny continues.

[quote=Harbal post_id=584857 time=1658440452 user_id=9107]
[quote=Advocate post_id=584486 time=1658253638 user_id=15238]
Protecting fossils, ruins, etc. on behalf of people in the future by making them unavailable to interested people today is morally abhorrent. The interest of hpothetical future beings OUGHT never outweigh the interests of actually existing people now.
[/quote]

So who has refused you access to his fossils?
[/quote]

Keeping people from climbing the pyramids is another good example.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 1:32 pm Keeping people from climbing the pyramids is another good example.

If you say so, but I'm afraid I can't muster up any moral outrage about it.

some pyramids could make nice water slides... deserts be damned...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:56 pm some pyramids could make nice water slides... deserts be damned...

-Imp

You could quite easily build a theme park around a pyramid. Tutankhamun World, with rollercoasters and everything.

or Atlantis in the Bahamas...



-Imp

I'm not sure how you could make fun day out for all the family based around fossils, but I bet Disney could pull it off.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 1:31 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:34 pm Could you give an example?

Sure. There's a hiking trail near here called Catherine Creek and there's a natural bridge section that's fenced off with a sign that says "Access prohibited to protect sacred site." or something similar. What if it's sacred to someone who wants access right now?! They've removed actually relevant access in favor of Future hypothetical value for people that don't even exist yet, and may never if the tyranny continues.

Well that's different from what I thought you meant. In that case I totally agree. Superstitious clap-trap should never be pandered to.
As for the pyramids, haven't you noticed how humans ruin everything? They were probably leaving rubbish all over them (the way wanky 'adventure tourists' do at the base of Mount Everest) and doing other things to degrade them and spoil them for everyone else.
Just because I want something preserved doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to actually view it in reality. The most famous cave drawings were in danger of disappearing due to humans breathing on them. They had to be protecting from gawking tourists or they would have disappeared forever. You don't have to be physically in the presence of something in order to appreciate it. Just knowing it exists can be enough.

[quote=vegetariantaxidermy post_id=585688 time=1658777102 user_id=8006]
[quote=Advocate post_id=584983 time=1658493105 user_id=15238]
[quote=vegetariantaxidermy post_id=584855 time=1658439275 user_id=8006]
Could you give an example?
[/quote]

Sure. There's a hiking trail near here called Catherine Creek and there's a natural bridge section that's fenced off with a sign that says "Access prohibited to protect sacred site." or something similar. What if it's sacred to someone who wants access right now?! They've removed actually relevant access in favor of Future hypothetical value for people that don't even exist yet, and may never if the tyranny continues.
[/quote]

Well that's different from what I thought you meant. In that case I totally agree. Superstitious clap-trap should never be pandered to.
As for the pyramids, haven't you noticed how humans ruin everything? They were probably leaving rubbish all over them (the way wanky 'adventure tourists' do at the base of Mount Everest) and do other things to degrade them and spoil them for others.
[/quote]

"Some people are idiots, so infringe everyone's freedom." has never been a legitimate idea. The people in charge of such places are literally letting them rot. Better that they be destroyed by actual use than that. Not to mention they have no right to control historical places that belong to everyone.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:32 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:25 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 1:31 pm Sure. There's a hiking trail near here called Catherine Creek and there's a natural bridge section that's fenced off with a sign that says "Access prohibited to protect sacred site." or something similar. What if it's sacred to someone who wants access right now?! They've removed actually relevant access in favor of Future hypothetical value for people that don't even exist yet, and may never if the tyranny continues.

Well that's different from what I thought you meant. In that case I totally agree. Superstitious clap-trap should never be pandered to.
As for the pyramids, haven't you noticed how humans ruin everything? They were probably leaving rubbish all over them (the way wanky 'adventure tourists' do at the base of Mount Everest) and do other things to degrade them and spoil them for others.

"Some people are idiots, so infringe everyone's freedom." has never been a legitimate idea. The people in charge of such places are literally letting them rot. Better that they be destroyed by actual use than that. Not to mention they have no right to control historical places that belong to everyone.

And therein lies your answer. They belong to everyone, not just wanky tourists who don't know how to behave themselves.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 1:31 pm There's a hiking trail near here called Catherine Creek and there's a natural bridge section that's fenced off with a sign that says "Access prohibited to protect sacred site."

And why have you got a burning desire to get onto this "sacred" site? I suspect it is purely because you are not allowed access to it.

[quote=Harbal post_id=585691 time=1658777961 user_id=9107]
[quote=Advocate post_id=584983 time=1658493105 user_id=15238]
There's a hiking trail near here called Catherine Creek and there's a natural bridge section that's fenced off with a sign that says "Access prohibited to protect sacred site."
[/quote]
And why have you got a burning desire to get onto this "sacred" site? I suspect it is purely because you are not allowed access to it.
[/quote]

It's not sacred to me, but it is to someone, and they have every right to use it that way so long as they're caring for it, not inhibiting other's use likewise. An ancient sacred site isn't sacred any longer unless it's a modern sacred site.