Ethical obligations and futures studies

摘要

A debate periodically recurs in Futures Studies circles which concerns the ethical commitment of futurists to a better future. The question is generally posed along two lines of arguments, or more accurately, assumptions. First, futurists have an obligation to work for a better future. Second, this duty implies some degree of effective achievement. I will argue that these are two incorrectly based assumptions. I set aside that it is indeed questionable whether futurists have a greater commitment to the future than any other professional, academic or cultural community. I propose in this essay to postulate that, as a general rule, is better to opt for an ethical low profile approach to the future. What are we to make of the first argument that futurists have a particular 'obligation' towards the future? Those who advocate the view that futurists should work for a better future are implying a particularly binding obligation, a greater accountability than other people individually or collectively considered. Why is this so? Why should futurists have a stronger duty than politicians, farmers, teachers, plumbers or cooks or anyone else? It could be argued that it is because of an implicit 'discipline-centrism'. Arguments that favour the futurists' superior commitment are really advancing the wish to be acknowledged as the higher authority in future matters. This is an alembicated way of saying that futurists should be consulted on any future question because they are the chief experts. This is perhaps some unconfessed nostalgia for the time when prophets, oracles and shamans were the unchallenged advisers on future affairs. The question should instead be: are futurists truly the major authority on future themes? Any realistic analysis should give the answer, no. And there are two reasons to support this position.