Why is it called the repugnant conclusion?
One might think the lesson of the above argument is that a larger population whose members’ lives are worth living will always be better than a smaller one, but that’s not quite right. The repugnant conclusion gets its name from the fact that it’s hard to accept. …
What do we learn from the repugnant conclusion?
The Repugnant Conclusion postulates that there exists a Total UtilityA sufficiently large that the social welfare of situation A exceeds the social welfare of situation B., regardless of the values assigned to culture and dignity in the two cases.
Can we avoid the repugnant conclusion?
According to the Repugnant Conclusion: Compared with the existence of many people who would all have some very high quality of life, there is some much larger number of people whose existence would be better, even though these people would all have lives that were barely worth living….Downloads.
| Date | Downloads |
|---|---|
| Nov 2021 | 2 |
What are the three incompatible general moral intuitions that make up the non identity problem?
More precisely, the nonidentity problem is the inability to simultaneously hold the following beliefs: (1) a person-affecting view; (2) bringing someone into existence whose life is worth living, albeit flawed, is not “bad for” that person; (3) some acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong even if they are not …
Is the repugnant conclusion repugnant?
Michael Huemer also argues that the repugnant conclusion is not repugnant and that normal intuition is wrong. However, Parfit argues that the above discussion fails to appreciate the true source of repugnance. He claims that on the face of it, it may not be absurd to think that B is better than A.
Was Derek Parfit a utilitarian?
Parfit was thus a utilitarian, in the sense that ethical preference should be given to greater numbers, even if that implies a reduction of our self interest. He hoped for impartial and impersonal ethics.
Who came up with the repugnant conclusion?
Derek Parfit
The mere addition paradox, also known as the repugnant conclusion, is a problem in ethics, identified by Derek Parfit and discussed in his book Reasons and Persons (1984). The paradox identifies the mutual incompatibility of four intuitively compelling assertions about the relative value of populations.
What is the main idea behind the non identity problem?
The nonidentity problem raises questions regarding the obligations we think we have in respect of people who, by our own acts, are caused both to exist and to have existences that are, though worth having, unavoidably flawed – existences, that is, that are flawed if those people are ever to have them at all.
What is the person affecting principle?
A person-affecting or person-based view (also called person-affecting restriction) in population ethics captures the intuition that an act can only be bad if it is bad for someone. A weaker form of person-affecting views states that an act can only be bad if it is bad for some existing or future person.
What part of speech is repugnant?
offensive or repulsive; arousing disgust or aversion. opposed or in conflict.
What does Derek Parfit argue?
Parfit argued that reality can be fully described impersonally: there need not be a determinate answer to the question “Will I continue to exist?” We could know all the facts about a person’s continued existence and not be able to say whether the person has survived.
Is it possible to avoid the repugnant conclusion?
This property is what makes it possible to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion. If the value of extra lives decreases asymptotically, then there may exist an upper limit to the total value of a population (exactly as the sum of the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4+ … has the upper limit 2). As long as population A in Fig.
Is the repugnant conclusion a problem for all moral theories?
The Repugnant Conclusion is a problem for all moral theories which hold that welfare at least matters when all other things are equal. 2. Eight Ways of Dealing with the Repugnant Conclusion Several philosophers have taken up the challenge from Parfit and have engaged in considerations as to what would constitute a satisfactory population ethics.
Which is the repugnant conclusion in parity of reasoning?
By parity of reasoning (scenario B + and C, C + etc.), we end up with a population Z in which all lives have a very low positive welfare. Thus, the final conclusion is that Z is better than A, which is the Repugnant Conclusion. By what apparently constitute sound steps of reasoning we have arrived at an absurd conclusion.