Comment by Kafka_Valokas on 14/01/2020 at 11:34 UTC*

15 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)

View submission: On population ethics, the development of Derek Parfit's thought, and the origin of Parfit's "repugnant conclusion"

View parent comment

Yup, that's definitely the point, although I strongly disagree with the claim that even classical utilitarianism leads to this conclusion, let alone other versions of utilitarianism.

Edit: Please don't downvote a comment just because you disagree with it. I've explained my opinion in more detail below.

Replies

Comment by Privat3pyl3 at 14/01/2020 at 16:31 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Isn’t the point of a downvote to show disagreement? Just because you’ve presented your opinion in an unobnoxious way doesn’t mean that someone can’t show disagreement through downvoting.

Comment by DarkMarxSoul at 14/01/2020 at 11:37 UTC

4 upvotes, 2 direct replies

Can you explain why? I always understood classical utilitarianism to be a relatively simple calculus. If you have either 5 million people with happiness level 10 or 50 billion people with happiness level 0.1, but no one with happiness level 0, the 50 billion people wins out.