What should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion?

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)

• https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/i...

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:	16 Nov 2024 21:33
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/116587

Actions (login required)

View Item