Causation, Cluelessness, and the Long Term

Agents are said to be “clueless” if they are unable to predict some ethically important consequences of their actions. Some philosophers have argued that such “cluelessness'' is widespread and creates problems for certain approaches to ethics. According to Hilary Greaves, a particularly problematic type of cluelessness, namely, “complex” cluelessness, affects attempts to do good as effectively as possible, as suggested by proponents of “Effective Altruism,” because we are typically clueless about the long-term consequences of such interventions. As a reaction, she suggests focusing on interventions that are long-term oriented from the start. This paper argues for three claims: first, that David Lewis’ distinction between sensitive and insensitive causation can help us better understand the differences between genuinely “complex” and more harmless “simple” cluelessness; second, that Greaves’ worry about complex cluelessness can be mitigated for attempts to do near-term good; and, third, that Greaves’ recommendation to focus on long term-oriented interventions in response to complex cluelessness is not promising as a strategy specifically for avoiding complex cluelessness. There are systematic reasons why the actual effects of serious attempts to beneficially shape the long-term future are inherently difficult to predict and why, hence, such attempts are prone to backfiring.