Zuber, Stéphane, Venkatesh, Nikhil, Tännsjö, Torbjörn, Tarsney, Christian, Stefánsson, H. Orri, Steele, Katie, Spears, Dean, Sebo, Jeff, Pivato, Marcus, Ord, Toby, Ng, Yew-kwang, Masny, Michal, Macaskill, William, Lawson, Nicholas, Kuruc, Kevin, Hutchinson, Michelle, Gustafsson, Johan E., Greaves, Hilary, Forsberg, Lisa, Fleurbaey, Marc, Coffey, Diane, Cato, Susumu, Castro, Clinton, Campbell, Tim, Budolfson, Mark, Broome, John, Berger, Alexander, Beckstead, Nick and Asheim, Geir B. (2021) What should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion? Utilitas, 33 (4). pp. 379-383. ISSN 0953-8208
Text (what-should-we-agree-on-about-the-repugnant-conclusion)
- Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (215kB) |
Abstract
The Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation, For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though its members have lives that are barely worth living. (Parfit 1984: 388)
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Additional Information: | © 2021 The Author(s). |
Divisions: | Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method |
Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General) |
Date Deposited: | 08 Sep 2022 15:18 |
Last Modified: | 05 Oct 2024 16:45 |
URI: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/116587 |
Actions (login required)
View Item |