Multiple Choice

Two economists are debating how to value future climate change damages within a cost-benefit analysis.

  • Economist A argues: 'The well-being of a person living 100 years from now is just as intrinsically valuable as the well-being of a person living today. Our calculations should not devalue future welfare simply because it occurs later in time.'

  • Economist B argues: 'Policy should reflect human nature. Individuals are inherently impatient, preferring benefits now rather than later. This same preference should be applied to society as a whole, meaning we should give less weight to the well-being of generations that are far in the future.'

What is the fundamental ethical disagreement that distinguishes these two positions?

0

1

Updated 2025-07-23

Contributors are:

Who are from:

Tags

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

Biomedical Sciences

Economics

Economy

Introduction to Microeconomics Course

Social Science

Empirical Science

Science

CORE Econ

Related