Everyday Ethics

The next enormous economic stimulus package has just passed the House and is being debated in the Senate, with much hullabaloo being created over the fact that no House Republicans voted for it, and that it appears to be loaded with funding for programs that won’t obviously stimulate the economy.  I think the National Endowment for the Arts is great, but how many people do they actually employ?  I don’t think unemployed artists are a huge worry in the current economic climate.  More importantly, the debate over the economic stimulus package is essentially a debate over current versus future interests, and it’s worth examining the ethical implications of what our government ultimately decides to do.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the current stimulus package, with a price tag of $900 billion, is going to be successful in stimulating a lot of economic activity.  It’s also the case that this bill is being funded entirely by selling U.S. Treasury bonds to foreign governments, mostly the Chinese.  Those bonds are going to come due eventually, and the likely result is going to be substantial sacrifices by future generations.  Perhaps social programs, like Head Start, social welfare, and Medicaid, will be even more substantially crippled by underfunding than they already are.  At a minimum, sacrifices will have to be made, and they will largely be borne by future generations.

On the other hand, the direct benefits of this package will mostly be enjoyed by those in the current generation.  This is not surprising, since most of the negative consequences are also being borne by current citizens.  The question is whether, and if so to what extent, it is ethically appropriate to place a burden upon future generations for the benefit of current generations.  The answer is not as simple as one might think, and evaluating these questions takes us to the heart of why ethical deliberations are so inherently challenging.

The argument for the stimulus can be justified in a couple of ways.  First, current citizens are already suffering, while it’s possible that the economic recovery created by the stimulus will be sufficient to eliminate any potential burden on future generations that the stimulus payout may suggest.  We ought to address actual suffering before we worry about preventing future possible suffering.

In addition, it’s entirely possible that failing to improve the economic situation of current citizens will have a more detrimental effect on future citizens than a massive debt repayment obligation.  A long and arduous economic downturn may have massively detrimental effects far into the future.  It’s not clear that the harm caused by making future generations pay for this package will be greater than the harm inflicted upon them by doing nothing.

The argument against the stimulus package is that it forces future generations to be accountable for the mistakes of the past and present.  Our children didn’t live beyond their means and buy homes they couldn’t possibly afford.  Whether or not they will be harmed is irrelevant; the issue is that future generations are not responsible for this problem, and cannot rightly be held accountable for it.

The right answer in this debate is not obvious.  It is partially an empirical matter concerning whether or not the stimulus package will work, to what extent, and whether the burden of future debt is preferable to the burden of future and current economic woes.  It is also a matter of accountability, whether it’s okay to place a burden on future generations that is not really deserved.  Whatever Congress ultimately decides, the stimulus package represents an opportunity for our government to make a statement about whose interests are most important.  Hopefully ethical considerations, and not only political one,  are a relevant part of the ongoing debate.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.