Search Results

Terms and Conditions The Reason & Rationality Summer Program is independent of the college and university campuses on which summer sessions are based. All names are trademarks of their respective owners. Reason & Rationality is a trademark of Reason & Rationality LLC. This program does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national or ethnic origin, or disability. Admission to the program is limited and shall be granted or denied at the sole discretion of the program administrators.

We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2026 Convivium summer program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 7-19) and (June 21 - July 2). Reason & Rationality 2025 Student Essay Opportunity [Scroll down for published student essays] We are pleased to announce the Reason & Rationality 2025 Essay Opportunity. Students who want to keep thinking and exploring are invited to submit their short, original work (no AI assistance) for possible publication on the Reason & Rationality website. Here are the rules: Students who attended Reason & Rationality 2025 are invited to submit one philosophical essay of no more than 2,000 words (but note that shorter is better here), based on any one of the following prompts: What, if anything, do we owe to future generations? What is the difference between bullshit and lying? If you were forced to choose, would you save the life of one 13 year-old human or 10^10 mice? Is it morally permissible for a blogger to befriend a corporate executive with the intention of learning and publicly exposing the corporation's financial malfeasance (e.g., illegal tax evasion)? Topic of your choice -- Note: requires advance approval of the topic by Reason & Rationality prior to August 18, 2025. Instead of, or in addition to, a philosophical essay, students may submit a philosophical creative writing piece of no more than 3,500 words (this is an upper limit, submissions can be much shorter), that explores an ethical dilemma. Additional criteria for publication. Works must be philosophical in nature, original works by the author, and consistent with Reason & Rationality's values of intellectual virtue. Deadlines: Submit intention to participate by August 22, 2025, by emailing info@reasonandrationality.com . Final submission deadline is September 12. Submit final draft to info@reasonandrationality.com Decisions on publication will be made by October 18. A portion of the essays will be selected for publication on the Reason & Rationality website. No assistance or feedback will be provided with the writing process by Reason & Rationality Instructors. Published Student Essays What We Owe Future Generations , by Grace Glukhov The Cube Factory Paradox , by Michael Reiff Human and Animal Value , by Harry Moss Wisdom of the Seraph , by Harry Moss (a short story) Questions About the Reason & Rationality Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com .

Reason & Rationality Teacher Recommendation Form Reason & Rationality equips high school students with the tools to think rigorously about complex questions, separate fact from ideology, and engage in lively intellectual discussion. Our classes are filled with humor, and rooted in relatable discussions. Students sharpen their critical thinking and communication skills and leave with a grasp of the intellectual frameworks that empower them to become confident independent thinkers. At Reason & Rationality, we welcome honest, intellectually rigorous conversations on topics that are often avoided in traditional high school settings, including politics, religion, ethics, personal values, and more. These discussions can be deeply rewarding but also require maturity, self-awareness, and respect. Everyone involved, students and instructors, shares responsibility for creating an open, thoughtful, and inclusive environment. We are committed to fostering dialogue, not debate. The goal is to understand and explore different perspectives, not to win arguments or persuade others of a particular ideology. Our aim is to create not only a “safe space,” but a brave space. where intellectual courage and emotional maturity go hand in hand. The 2-week Foundation Program focuses on 20 Big Ideas in Philosophy, Economics and Ethics. Classes are rigorous, fast-paced and full of humor. Reason & Rationality classes and small group convivial conversations are led by PhD candidates and young professors from top universities including Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, MIT and others. Teacher Recommendations are helpful in determining whether the applicant is well suited to engage in deep intellectual conversation in a convivial manner. Please complete this Teacher Recommendation form below. Hitting "send" automatically emails your recommendation to Reason & Rationality Dean of Academics, Peter Bach-y-Rita. You may also copy the content of this form into an email and send it to Dr. Bach-y-Rita at info@reasonandrationality.com . Either way, your recommendation will remain confidential and will not be shared with the student. Teacher Recommendation Student Name Student Last Name Student's School Name Student Grade Level Classes Taken With The Recommender: Teacher First Name Teacher Last Name Email Subjects Taught In what ways has the student shown a genuine interest in exploring big complex questions and ideas? In what ways has the student demonstrated the ability to engage in dialogue in a civil, open, and inclusive manner? Send Thanks for submitting!

Reason & Rationality offers educational programs for high school students. Dedicated to empowering high school students to think rigorously & critically. Princeton Session 2025 kicks off! Reason & Rationality 2025 SUMMER PROGRAM AT PRINCETON & SWARTHMORE Reason & Rationality begins with a question: What are the foundational ideas that shape policies, drive decision-making, and unlock a deeper understanding of the world—yet are rarely introduced to high school students? Seeking the answer led us to 20 Big Ideas from Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE), a framework that provides the conceptual scaffolding for understanding the forces that shape our society and the critical thinking tools to navigate them. Reason & Rationality equips high school students with the tools to think rigorously about complex questions, separate fact from ideology, and engage in lively intellectual exchange. Our classes are filled with humor, and rooted in relatable discussions. Students sharpen their critical thinking and communication skills and leave with a grasp of the intellectual frameworks that empower them to become confident independent thinkers. Reason & Rationality’s 5:1 student-teacher ratio ensures an intimate, engaging learning environment. Our instructors are not only accomplished academics from Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, and other great universities, but also charismatic young voices actively publishing and leading debate and dialogue on online media. They don’t just teach PPE; they embody how young people can develop and share their ideas with the world. Five hours of interactive discussions and problem solving per day plus discussions over meals and dorm activities give each student lots of opportunities to practice and reinforce their newly acquired skills and knowledge. Learn More Apply Now About Reason & Rationality Meet the Team Peter Bach-y-Rita Dean of Academics Peter Bach-y-Rita: Ph.D., MIT (Philosophy), J.D. Stanford Law School, A.B. Princeton University (highest honors). Dr. Bach-y-Rita's dissertation at MIT was at the intersection of ethics, biology and technology. He has published work on intellectual property, bankruptcy law, and the nature of legal causation. He co- founded Reason & Rationality in 2023. Head of Instruction Joe is a Philosophy PhD student at Princeton University. He has published 16 articles on topics in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and ethics in leading peer-reviewed philosophy journals. On the popular level, he creates lecture videos and hosts discussions with philosophers on his YouTube channel Majesty of Reason. His videos have attracted nearly 1.5 million views in total. Joseph Schmid CMO & Instructor James ("JB") Estes is a Harvard University student. He is the co-author, with Mitch Presnick, of "4 Key Strengths of China’s Economy — and What They Mean for Multinational Companies" (2024 Harvard Business Review ) James Estes 2025 Guest Expert Lecturers Benjamin Morison DEPARTMENT CHAIR OF PHILOSOPHY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY BPhil in Philosophy, Balliol College, Oxford (British Academy Major Award) Peter Baumann DEPARTMENT CHAIR OF PHILOSOPHY, SWARTHMORE COLLEGE Ph.D., University of Göttingen Christy Wampole PROFESSOR OF FRENCH, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Ph.D. Stanford University CIVIL DISCOURSE Schools today are facing a crisis in the breakdown of civil discourse. The solution lies less in enforcing politeness and “ground rules” than in cultivating the intellectual foundations of a reflective and philosophical worldview. The Reason & Rationality curriculum fosters civil discourse through the habits of thought that lead to deeper understanding, humility, and respect for opposing views.

Teacher Recommendation Primary Parent / Guardian First Name Primary Parent / Guardian Last Name Primary Parent / Guardian Email Address (This will be used to log in to your account) Select an Address How Many Students Are You Signing Up? 1 Student 2 Students Student 1's First name Student 1's Last name Student 1's Email (Students will be copied on emails) Student 1's Phone Student 1's Year of Graduation Student 1's Gender Choose an option Student 1's Name, City, & State of High School Attended Student 2's First name Student 2's Last name Student 2's Email (Students will be copied on emails) Student 2's Phone Student 2's Year of Graduation Student 2's Gender Choose an option Student 2's Name, City, & State of High School Attended How Did You Hear About Us? Teacher College Counselor Friend or Family Member Google Social Media Email Other Are You Interested In the Full Two Week Session, or a Single Week Session? Full Two-Week Session Single Week Only Full Two-Week Session Session 1 (June 7th - June 20th) - $6,900 (Early Bird Pricing) Session 2 (June 21st - July 2nd) - $6,900 (Early Bird Pricing) Single Week Only: Session 1 - Week 1: June 7 - 13, 2026 - $4600 Session 1 - Week 2: June 14 - 20, 2026 - $4600 Session 2 - Week 1: June 21 - 27, 2026 - $4600 Session 2 - Week 2: June 27 - July 2, 2026 - $4600 Full Two-Week Session Session 1 (June 7 - June 20) - $13,800 (Early Bird Discounted Price) Session 2 (June 21 - July 2) - $13,800 (Early Bird Discounted Price) Single Week Only Session 1 - Week 1: June 7 - 13, 2026 - $9,200 Session 1 - Week 2: June 14 - 20, 2026 - $9,200 Session 2 - Week 1: June 21 - 27, 2026 - $9,200 Session 2 - Week 2: June 27 - July 2, 2026 - $9,200 Send Thanks for submitting!

Human and Animal Value By Harry Moss This essay intends to answer the following question: if given the choice, should one opt to save the life of one human child or the life of 10^10–ten billion–mice? However, I will interpret this question as follows: should we act as if a human life has value that infinitely exceeds the value of another animal’s life? I believe that this is what the moral dilemma truly seeks to address. For utilitarians–put very simply, those who believe that morality demands we maximize the good consequences of our actions and minimize the bad consequences–the answer to this question tends to be easy. Assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances, we should save the mice. This is because the goal of utilitarians is to maximize total utility. For some, this is the sum total of pleasure in the universe minus the sum total of pain. For many others, utility is something more complex. Using pleasure and pain makes it easy to explain why we should save the mice, though. Ten billion mice almost certainly allow for more pleasure to exist in the universe than a single human child does. Many more complex notions of utility would lead us to the same conclusion. Because the utilitarian answer is easy, and because I am not especially sympathetic to utilitarianism, I will attempt to give a Kantian answer to this question. Kantian ethics focuses on the duties a person has towards themselves and others rather than the quantifiable consequences of actions. Like utilitarianism, it is a monist system–it maintains that there is essentially only one guiding principle. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, but he formulates it in three different ways. For the purposes of this argument, I will use two of these formulae. The first is the Formula of Universal Law. To understand this, one must understand the concept of a maxim, which is a combination of action and purpose. For example: “I will eat this slice of toast in order to satisfy my hunger.” In very simplified terms, for a maxim to be morally permissible, it must be such that one could live in a world where everyone acted according to the maxim. In the case of toast-eating to satisfy hunger, there is no problem. But consider: “I will steal my neighbor’s money in order to increase my wealth.” If everyone acts according to this maxim, no one’s wealth will increase because everyone will suffer constant theft. Such a maxim cannot be universalized, and so is immoral. One can think of the Formula of Universal Law as analogous to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” though it is not precisely the same. The second is the Formula of Humanity. This requires us to conceive of other people as ends-in-themselves. The other side of this, which is easy to intuitively understand and is sufficient for my argument, is that we must never treat others as mere means to an end. We cannot use others for our own gain while simultaneously giving no regard to their interests. Because both of these formulae have a certain level of intuitive appeal, I will not explain in any significant detail why Kantians accept them. Going forward, I will make the ironic assumption that the Formula of Humanity applies to non-human animals as well, but the Formula of Universal Law does not (1). I will assume that duty does require us not to treat animals as mere means. However, I will also assume that, when we imagine everyone acting according to our maxims to test their morality, we need not and should not include non-rational animals. Circling back to our dilemma, it is clear that we cannot act in a way which is entirely commensurate with our duty. In order to act in accordance with a conception of humans and animals as ends-in-themselves, we ought to try to save their lives. However, since we cannot save all the lives involved, we are not required by duty to do so. This is in line with a common philosophical idea that if one ought to do something, one must be capable of doing that thing. Using only the Formula of Humanity, the answer may seem clear. Since both the human child and the mice are ends-in-themselves, it may seem we should save the mice. There are more of them, after all, and we understand simple math. All things being equal, this seems a fair conclusion to draw. It is the conclusion I would like to draw, because I myself am committed to the idea that animal lives are of great moral worth. However, all things may not be equal. Consider that Kantian ethics does not define moral conduct by its consequences. This does not in the least mean that we should not choose what we believe to be the better of two outcomes when the option is prevented. However, duty may prevent us from doing so. In that case, we are obligated to choose the “worse” outcome, which is not actually worse in a moral sense because it is the moral choice. In fact, something that is not duty may even prevent us from choosing the better outcome. Consider special obligations. Parents prioritize the interests of their children over the interests of other children, and this is perfectly consistent with the Formula of Universal Law so long as they permit other parents to do the same. However, acting in accordance with this kind of special obligation is not the kind of duty the Formula of Humanity gives us. Parents could decide to weigh the interests of all children equally, and this is also consistent with the Formula of Universal Law. I believe that the Formula of Universal Law often creates this kind of situation, in which several conflicting maxims are morally permissible so long as one adopts them on a consistent basis. A perfect duty like our obligation to never treat others as mere means can break the tie, but we do not always have this sort of duty to fall back on. Now, consider the following maxim: “I shall save human lives rather than animal lives in order to protect the interests of my species.” Adopting this maxim does not permit us to kill animals to save human lives, because that would violate the Formula of Humanity. If, however, one accepts the distinction between killing and letting die, then it may permit us to save the human child rather than ten billion mice. Here is a brief argument for why we should accept this distinction: Let us assume, as I have assumed earlier, that ought implies can. Let us assume also, as a Kantian would be inclined to maintain, that we ought not kill people. Consider, now, a simple fact. All over the world, many people die on a daily basis. Each one of us could devote our time to saving the lives of as many of these people as possible. However, we cannot save all of them. Even removing death by old age, it cannot be the case that each of us ought to never let a person die because it is not possible that each of us never lets a person die. However, I maintain that it is possible and desirable that each of us never ought to kill. Some cases may be exceptions, such as those in which we must kill a prospective murderer to prevent him from completing his act. Such exceptions, however, would not explain why we are permitted to let people die if letting die is, in fact, identical to killing. This is one reason why I believe that we should accept the distinction between killing and letting die. It may otherwise be impossible for us to have a duty which prohibits us from killing. Notice that this argument, if it succeeds, also establishes that we cannot have a duty which simply prevents us from letting people die under any circumstances. I think it is likely that such an argument has been made previously, and so there may be objections to it of which I am not yet aware. If, however, it succeeds, then I believe the maxim: “I shall save human lives rather than animal lives in order to protect the interests of my species” allows us to save the human child rather than ten billion mice. As in the case of special obligation, a contradictory maxim can also be universalized: “Whenever the lives of conscious creatures are at stake, I shall save as many as possible in order to respect these creatures as ends-in-themselves to the greatest possible extent.” Thus, I believe that the Kantian may be permitted to make either choice in the dilemma. This, for me, is an undesirable outcome. Given the brevity of this essay, I very much hope that I have overlooked something which commits the Kantian to saving the mice. (1) It is important to note that Kantians broadly derive morality from practical reason. Practical reason is a faculty possessed only by rational creatures, so it seems difficult to explain why any formula of the moral law should protect non-human animals. Indeed, Kant himself maintained that we have no duties towards animals. Thosewanting for a good answer to this question should seek out Christine Korsgaard’s Fellow Creatures, which makesarguments that initially led me to the conclusion which I assume here.

We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2025 Convivium summer program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 8-14) and Swarthmore College (July 27 - Aug 2). Reason & Rationality 2025 Summer Program Apply Now For 2026 2025 Faculty Classrooms and Dorms Sample Weekly Schedule Students in grades 8 - 12 are invited to apply. Students who attend both sessions get the full experience, priority in enrollment and tuition discount. We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2025 Summer Program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 8-14) and Swarthmore College (July 27 - Aug 2). Each week-long session will bring together students for deep conversations about the biggest ideas in Philosophy, Policy and Economics in a series of informal and convivial salons with an approximately 5:1 student-instructor ratio . Students will live in the college dorms with their instructors. The animating philosophy of Reason & Rationality is that relationship and conversation are the font of the intellectual life. Session 1 (Princeton Theological Seminary June 8 - 14, 2025) The Value of a Human Life (cost benefit analysis, present value discounting, the significance of future generations) Utilitarianism and The Veil of Ignorance Basic Logic, Intellectual Virtues, Properties of Arguments Moral Realism and Moral Relativism The Trolley Problem Supply and Demand COVID Lockdowns and Ice Cream Cones (total and marginal utility, opportunity cost) Private Property and Prices Complex Systems, Emergent Properties, and the Mystery of Consciousness Norms Unlike our Own (primogeniture, bride price, dowries, indissoluble marriage, cousin marriage) Session 2 (Swarthmore College July 27 - August 2, 2025) 11. Base Rates and the Base Rate Fallacy 12. Selection Bias, Social Desirability Bias 13. Preference Falsification and Self-Deception 14. Harry Frankfurt on Bullshit 15. Bayes’s Rule 16. Do You Live in a Simulation? 17. Rationality, Rationalism and Pascal’s Wager 18. The Conceptual Analysis of “Liberal” and “Conservative” 19. Science Fiction and Philosophy: Life Extension and Universal Basic Income 20. The Ethics of Selling Human Organs and Babies Questions About the Reason & Rationality Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com .

The Reason & Rationality two-week summer program includes 20 sessions on the 20 biggest ideas in philosophy, economics and ethics. About Reason & Rationality Application Process Accommodations & Dining Other Who is Reason & Rationality for? High school students who love critical thinking and conversation, as well as high school students seeking to expand their capabilities - authentic curiosity, critical thinking and verbal dexterity - to get into an ideally suited college and to thrive there and beyond. Why Do High School Students Need Reason & Rationality? Crafting strong arguments and holding intellectual conversations that are interesting, persuasive and stay on track requires a combination of critical thinking, conversation techniques and a basic knowledge of the 20 Big Ideas in philosophy, economics and politics that serve as a foundation for many issues. What Problem Does Reason & Rationality Solve? With the many distractions and demands on high school students and families, high school students rarely get the opportunity to practice fluid, to-the-point conversations in a social but formal setting. Students need those skills in order to grasp opportunities that appear in life. What Makes Reason & Rationality Different from Competitor Offerings? We are designed from the ground up for joyful, authentic inquiry. Our classes are concentrated dives into the most important ideas -- from justice and democracy to game theory and the nature of consciousness -- led by Ph.D. students and graduates from top philosophy programs. Our faculty don’t vanish after class; you’ll find them in the lounge at midnight still debating with students. The result is a rare atmosphere where sharp reasoning, open-minded dialogue, and genuine friendships thrive. To make it all work, Reason & Rationality instructors are picked from the most dynamic and energetic young scholars who love connecting with their younger peers and audiences. What is the meaning of Convivial? Convivial (adjective): Marked by good company and cheerful conversation. What will life be like for students after they attend Reason & Rationality? Students will have the skills, knowledge and confidence to speak up more in class with well crafted arguments gaining the attention of teachers and improving their GPA. Students will be well prepared to engage in stimulating intellectual discussions with college interviewers and adeptly handle tricky questions. How should students prepare for the Summer Program? The Summer Program is about fun and conversation, so students are not required to do substantial work in advance. We will email links to some short videos and readings a few weeks before the program, which will help students get in the mindset to maximize their learning from the very beginning of the Program. After each days' activities, students will be assigned short readings to prepare for the next day. FAQ James' research on the famous Trolley Problem Immediate Impact James B Estes attended the original Reason & Rationality discussion series in 2023 as a participant and TA, later joining the team to co-found the Reason & Rationality Summer Program. Inspired by the class session on the Trolley Problem, James conducted empirical research into survey respondents’ intuitions about an important Trolley Problem variant. He then authored and published a peer reviewed article entitled Empirical Evidence Reveals the Motivation of Subjects Who Switch Tracks in the Trolley Loop Case. Apply Now!

< Back Seminar and Ethics Bowl Competition The Pingry School, NJ Previous Next

We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2026 Convivium summer program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 7-19) and (June 21 - July 2). Reason & Rationality Foundation Program - Princeton 2026 Reason & Rationality's Foundation Program immerses high school students in lively, small-group discussions around twenty core topics in philosophy, economics, politics, and decision-making. Taught by Ph.D. students and young professors from Princeton, Harvard and other leading philosophy graduate programs, the two-week program emphasizes serious but playful intellectual conversation — testing ideas in real time, revising views with humility, and continuing discussions beyond the classroom, sometimes late into the evening. Some of our students go on to create their own student podcasts and projects that you can explore on this website. Sample Topics : Foundation Program topics include free will and determinism; probabilistic arguments for the existence of God; the legitimacy of democratic political institutions; and and how economists and philosophers think about cost-benefit analysis, utility maximization, and their limits. Location : Both sessions of the Foundation Program are held at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ. Apply Now Program Details: Students who, as of Summer 2026, are entering 9th grade through those who have just graduated from high school are eligible to apply. While preference will be given to those applying to the full 2-week session, you will also find an option to apply for a single week. Session 1 - June 7 - 20, 2026 Session 2 - June 21 - July 2, 2026 Oral Exam Contest: Students who attend the full 2-week program are eligible to participate in an Oral Exam Contest on the second to last day of classes. The Oral Exam Contest follows the same oral examination methods used in Princeton undergraduate courses. We are excited to announce that Benjamin Morison, the Chair of the Princeton University Philosophy Department, will join the judging panel for the 2026 competition. Participation in the Oral Exam Contest involves a small additional tuition charge. Link. Use the button below to set up a Zoom Call with Dean of Academics Peter Bach-y-Rita and learn more: Zoom Calendly Hear Student Reflections: Hear Instructor Reflections: Foundation Program 2026 Sample Schedule Week One Week Two Program Schedule Tuition and Pricing The program fee of $7,600 covers all classes, activities, housing, and meals for the full two-week program ($5,000 for a single week). A $1,000 deposit is due at the time of application and will be promptly refunded if the application is not accepted; the remaining balance is due by March 15, 2026. Reason & Rationality will refund the full deposit and any tuition payments if a withdrawal request is made prior to March 15, 2026. Program fees will increase on March 15, 2026; however, applications submitted with deposit before March 15 will be honored at the current rate, even if supporting materials (such as teacher recommendations) are received afterward. If your student requires financial aid, please contact us at info@reasonandrationality.com . Questions About Reason & Rationality's Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com .

What We Owe Future Generations By Grace Glukhov In this paper, I will argue we must consider the interests of future generations in any major decision that may significantly impact their lives, as we owe future generations the assurance that we will neither shape their future for the worse nor predetermine them to lives they feel are not worth living. I will demonstrate this through showing we have some moral obligation to future people, in the same way we have moral obligations to those in the present. If one accepts the premise that we should avoid making others feel like their lives are not worth living in the present, it follows that this should extend to our duties to future generations. In the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Kant says that individuals should not be treated as a means to an end, suggesting that lives have inherent value. I argue that the second formulation extends to the lives of future people. Any lives brought into existence will come to possess the same value as the lives of existing people, meaning we should try to respect future lives in similar ways that we respect present lives. In What We Owe the Future , William MacAskill introduces the idea of longtermism, which says that “positively influencing the long-term future is a key moral priority of our time.” (William MacAskill, "The Case for Longtermism," excerpt from, in What We Owe the Future ) MacAskill claims that future people are a “silent majority” whose lives are shaped by our actions. In support of his argument, he turns to positive trends of the past (e.g. women receiving the right to vote) and examples of what we could prevent (e.g., “engineered viruses [and] A.I.-enabled totalitarianism”). Critics of longtermism might say that this framework places the lives of those who are not yet alive above those who are. They might also say that it is too hard to predict the future. However, I believe we live in an era where we have enough understanding of future threats for us to be able to act in ways we know we can help: for example, climate change. Not only does fighting climate change help those in the present, but it is a topic we understand will detract from future generations’ lives should it be allowed to continue. This is not to say longtermism is the only ideology we should live by. However, it is clear that there is a pattern of social change and improvement when people are motivated by a desire to forge a better world for their children. In the way that previous generations have fought for rights for themselves and for their children—observed through movements like the suffragettes or Civil Rights—by fighting for ourselves and for our descendants, we can create a better world for people in the present and future. In upholding institutions that will continue to harm humanity, we increase the likelihood that future generations will feel that their life is not worth living due to predetermined circumstances. By virtue of challenging institutions that will detract from human life in the present or future, we help not only future generations, but ourselves. Arguments about distance and lack of personal gain should not affect our view of moral action towards future generations. In his 2003 essay We Don’t Owe Them A Thing! A Tough-Minded But Soft-Hearted View of Aid to the Faraway Needy , Jan Narveson argues that while people have a moral responsibility to not harm others, they are not morally obligated to help those they have not harmed. He claims “distance [from future generations] makes a difference only because and therefore if greater distance increases the cost of our doing things at that distance.” He adds “the higher the cost to the agent, other things being equal, the less stringent is that duty. Distance is normally a cost factor.” (Jan Narveson, "We Don't Owe Them a Thing! A Tough-minded but Soft-hearted View of Aid to the Faraway Needy," The Monist 86, no. 3) Under Narveson’s paradigm, we are not morally obligated to help future generations unless we know our actions cause direct harm—something harder to be sure of due to how far away in time they exist from us. In fact, Narveson’s view of distance as a “cost factor” means that helping future generations is burdensome for us. However, I find Narveson’s argument about distance unconvincing for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that non-action is a choice that can still contribute to making things worse for future generations. For example, while someone may not be one of the worlds’ biggest fossil fuel emitters, it is hard to live a normal life without contributing to pollution or harming the environment. If one does not attempt to compensate for some of their emissions, they will most certainly have a role (even if it is a small one) in making the climate crisis worse for future generations. Secondly, though increased distance comes with the potential for more intervening factors and a lessened chain of causation, this does not absolve us of all fault. For example, we (Generation A) may plant the seeds for Generation B to take actions that will impose negative effects on the lives of Generation C. In both this scenario and the scenario of inaction, it is hard to argue that we do not bear any responsibility for suffering. The chain of causation will ultimately lead back to our actions—regardless of our intent. If our actions provide for the potential of future suffering, our distance from that suffering (and any factors in between) does not take away the negative implications of our role. Thus, since we will almost certainly have an impact on future generations, we should feel a moral obligation to mitigate the negative effects our actions would bestow onto future lives. In his paper, Narveson also argues that “very distant people are unlikely ever to be in a strictly reciprocal relation to us,” which means that we do not owe help to future people, as we gain very little (or nothing) from them. (Narveson, "We Don't Owe Them a Thing!") I find this claim to be unconvincing, as we owe things to beings in the present that cannot reciprocate. For example, many would argue we owe newborn babies protection and care. However, our relationships to newborn babies are not reciprocal in the traditional sense. In fact, the love between a parent and a child is often described as unconditional. While we can argue that caring for babies provides us with happiness and fulfillment, there is a strong case to be made that knowing our descendants will be protected and provided the conditions to lead fulfilling lives can also offer fulfillment to us. Thus, just because future generations cannot reciprocate in the traditional sense, that does not lessen our obligations to them. Since each of our actions will have an impact on the future, when faced with multiple choices, we should choose the one that is most moral in that situation. Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit introduces the non-identity problem, which suggests we cannot be blamed for the suffering of future generations since our actions that caused that suffering have also led to their existence. Parfit argues that an existence with suffering is likely to be better than nonexistence. However, any action leads to a certain future set of people. Though taking the more moral action will lead to a different group of people than picking the less moral action, any action will mean that certain people will exist and certain people will not come into existence. Thus, we should focus on our actions being well intentioned, as to avoid causing suffering to anyone. It is plausible to suggest that trying to center our actions around helping lives that do not yet exist can take away from helping current people. However, as I have argued, we live in a day and age where we have a fairly concrete understanding of both the problems future generations are likely to face and ways in which we can help mitigate these problems. As I discussed, taking action that considers the lives of future generations rarely comes at a personal expense to us. Therefore, we owe it to future generations to make good intentioned decisions about future conditions that will impact them. Bibliography Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals . MacAskill, William. "The Case for Longtermism." In What We Owe the Future . Excerpt from In What We Owe the Future. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/opinion/the-case-for-longtermism.html Narveson, Jan. "We Don't Owe Them a Thing! A Tough-minded but Soft-hearted View of Aid to the Faraway Needy." The Monist 86, no. 3. Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons . Clarendon Press, 1987.

We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2026 Convivium summer program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 7-19) and (June 21 - July 2). Reason & Rationality Foundation Program Princeton 2026 Reason & Rationality's Foundation Program immerses high school students in lively, small-group discussions around twenty core topics in philosophy, economics, politics, and decision-making. Apply Now Both sessions of the Foundation Program are held at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ. Taught by Ph.D. students and young professors from Princeton, Harvard and other leading philosophy graduate programs, the two-week program emphasizes serious but playful intellectual conversation — testing ideas in real time, revising views with humility, and continuing discussions beyond the classroom, sometimes late into the evening. Some of our students go on to participate in Reason & Rationality podcasts and related projects, which you can explore on this website. Hear Student Reflections: Hear Instructor Reflections: Program Details Students who, as of Summer 2026, are entering 9th grade through those who have just graduated from high school are eligible to apply. While preference will be given to those applying to the full 2-week session, you will also find an option to apply for a single week. Session 1 - Week 1: June 7 - 13, 2026 (waitlist only) Session 1 - Week 2: June 14 - 20, 2026 Session 1 - Both Weeks Session 2 - Week 1: June 21 - 27, 2026 (waitlist only) Session 2 - Week 2: June 27 - July 2, 2026 (waitlist only) Session 2 - Both Weeks (13 spots left - 1/30) Families interested in joining a waitlist should email: info@reasonandrationality.com Oral Exam Contest: Students who attend the full 2-week program are eligible to participate in an Oral Exam Contest on the second to last day of classes. Led by members of our Princeton-based teaching team, the Oral Exam Contest follows the same oral examination methods used in Princeton undergraduate courses. Participation involves a small additional tuition charge. Apply Now Foundation Program 2026 Sample Schedule Week One Week Two Tuition and Pricing The program fee of $7,600 covers all classes, activities, housing, and meals for the full two-week program ($5,000 for a single week). A $1,000 deposit is due at the time of application, which promptly will be refunded if the application is not accepted, with the remaining balance being due within seven (7) days of acceptance. Reason & Rationality will refund the full deposit and any tuition payments if request is made prior to April 22, 2026. Program fees will increase in Spring 2026. If your student needs financial aid, please contact us at: info@reasonandrationality.com. Questions About Reason & Rationality's Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com .