Title: Exploring Ethical Dilemmas of Longtermism from the Perspectives of James Lenman

and Hilary Greaves

Introduction
In the context of ethical decision-making, longtermism, a concept that emphasizes the importance
of the long-term impacts of our actions, faces significant scrutiny. This essay critically examines
the ethical dimensions of longtermism through the perspectives on cluelessness as articulated by
James Lenman and Hilary Greaves. Drawing upon Lenman’s critique of the predictability in
consequentialist ethics (Lenman, 2000) and Greaves’ nuanced discussion on different forms of
cluelessness (Greaves, 2016), the hypothesis is formulated: the perspectives of Lenman and
Greaves provide distinct insights into the limitations and challenges of longtermism in moral
decision-making. Here, the theoretical frameworks proposed by these scholars (IV) inform our
understanding of the perceived limitations and challenges in longtermism-based ethical decision-
making (DV). This analysis aligns with the broader discourse in moral philosophy where the
predictability of outcomes is a pivotal concern, as discussed in Bostrom’s foundational work on
longtermism (Bostrom, 2006). By engaging with these perspectives, this essay aims to explore the
intersection of longtermism and cluelessness and its implications for ethical decision-making.

Background and Literature Review

Longtermism, as outlined by Bostrom (2006), suggests prioritizing actions that positively impact
the distant future. However, cluelessness, a term significantly explored in Lenman's (2000) and
Greaves' (2016) works, questions our ability to predict these long-term consequences. The debate
extends into the realm of effective altruism, with Mogensen (2021) arguing for a reconsideration
of priorities in the face of uncertainty.

Analysis of James Lenman's Perspective

Lenman's (2000) critique of consequentialism, a foundation of longtermism, revolves around the
inherent unpredictability of long-term outcomes. He argues that this uncertainty makes ethical
decision-making based on future outcomes almost infeasible, a perspective that significantly
challenges the foundations of longtermism.

Analysis of Hilary Greaves' Perspective

Greaves (2016) counters by distinguishing between 'simple' and 'complex' forms of cluelessness,
acknowledging that while some long-term outcomes are unpredictable, others are not entirely
beyond our comprehension. Her approach suggests a more measured application of longtermism,
advocating for a balance between immediate and future considerations in ethical decision-making.

Comparison and Contrast

When delving into the ethical challenges of longtermism, the theoretical frameworks of
cluelessness provided by James Lenman and Hilary Greaves present an engaging comparative
perspective. Both scholars concur that cluelessness presents a significant hurdle for longtermism,
but they diverge notably in their responses to this challenge. Lenman (2000) approaches the issue
from a traditional ethical standpoint, arguing that the inherent unpredictability of long-term
outcomes discredits the practicality of longtermism. His stance casts doubt on the viability of
longtermism as a robust ethical framework, emphasizing the difficulties in making decisions based
on highly uncertain future consequences.
In contrast, Greaves (2016) offers a more nuanced viewpoint. While acknowledging the
unpredictability highlighted by Lenman, she introduces a distinction between 'simple' and
'complex' forms of cluelessness, allowing for a more detailed analysis of longtermism’s
applicability. Greaves suggests that, although some future outcomes are indeed unpredictable
(complex cluelessness), others might fall within the scope of reasonable speculation (simple
cluelessness). This perspective implies that longtermism, if applied judiciously and with an
understanding of its limitations, can still serve as a valuable tool in ethical decision-making.
This comparison and contrast of Lenman's and Greaves' approaches not only illuminate their
differing views on longtermism but also demonstrate how each perspective can lead to distinct
interpretations and applications of this ethical concept. The juxtaposition of their viewpoints
underscores the complexity involved in applying longtermism and enriches our understanding of
its potential and limitations in the realm of ethical decision-making.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The exploration of Lenman's and Greaves' perspectives reveals that while longtermism faces
significant challenges due to cluelessness, it is not without merit. Future research, potentially
building on Tarsney's (2023) work on the epistemic challenges to longtermism, could further
explore how longtermism can be adapted to address these limitations, offering more robust
frameworks for ethical decision-making in the face of an unpredictable future.