Longtermism, authenticity, and where the burden should fall
Longtermism says the stakes of the far future are so large that they outweigh almost everything else. But what does that mean for the life of a present-day agent? If the moral math tells us to devote our lives to tiny probabilities of astronomical futures, can we do that authentically? Can it give meaning, or only alienation?
This essay explores the conflict between the axiological imperative of strong longtermism maximize expected value across the vast future and the agent’s pursuit of a good life here and now. I argue that authenticity and meaning act as genuine moral side-constraints, but that longtermism can be reframed in ways that make it livable. And I suggest that institutions, not individuals, are best placed to bear the heaviest longtermist responsibilities.
The Stakes vs. the Agent
The Essays on Longtermism (Oxford, 2025, open access) lays out the case for Axiological Strong Longtermism (ASL): what matters most about our actions is how they shape the far future. The stakes sensitivity argument follows: when the stakes are that high, side-constraints and moral prerogatives weaken. This underwrites Deontic Strong Longtermism (DSL): we ought to choose near-best options for the far future.
But this runs into a challenge. Acting for goods that are abstract or radically unlike our own risks inauthenticity: agents cannot genuinely identify with the values they are said to be serving. And the immense causal distance of far-future effects undermines meaningfulness: our contributions risk feeling accidental, “tiny cogs in the astronomical machine of millennia.” These are not trivial concerns. They are conditions for moral agency itself.
Authenticity and Meaning as Moral Limits
Philosophers of the good life from Aristotle’s eudaimonia to contemporary accounts of authenticity and meaning treat identification with one’s projects as essential. A life where all major projects are dictated by abstract expected-value math risks alienation. Similarly, meaning often depends on seeing our impact as deliberate andconstraints intentional. If the chains of influence stretch beyond comprehension, the sense of agency thins.
This suggests authenticity and meaning function as moral side constrain on the demands of DSL. Longtermism cannot simply override them without hollowing out the standpoint of the agent.
Reframing Longtermist Engagement
Rejecting longtermism entirely would be premature. Here, Shigehiro Oishi’s Life in Three Dimensions is helpful: alongside happiness and meaning, he argues for psychological richness, a life of exploration, curiosity, and diverse experience as a neglected dimension of well-being.
Seen this way, longtermist projects can be reframed as moral exploration. Instead of trying to optimize for “unknown unknowns,” individuals can view their engagement as a way to expand moral imagination, cultivate curiosity, and connect their lives to the broader sweep of history. This approach makes longtermist action authentic and meaningful now, without pretending we can fully grasp the values of the far future.
Why Institutions Should Carry the Load
The demandingness critique looks different at the institutional level.
Institutions universities, governments, foundations are designed for impartial action, long horizons, and division of labor.
They face fewer moral-psychological hurdles: they can optimize without alienation.
Through coordination, they can act intentionally on large scales, making their influence less “accidental” than an individual’s.
On this view, individuals should pursue longtermism in ways that fit their good lives, while institutions take on the strongest longtermist imperatives. A division of moral labor emerges: authentic individual engagement, institutional optimization.
Conclusion
The axiological case for longtermism is overwhelming. But the deontic claim that individuals ought always to act as if the far future overrides everything else must be tempered. Authenticity and meaning are not luxuries; they are prerequisites of moral life.
The way forward is to reframe longtermism for individuals as a project of exploration and richness, while expecting institutions to carry the weight of maximizing across millennia. This balance preserves both the axiological imperative and the agent’s pursuit of a good life making longtermism not just a moral theory, but a livable one.