Comment by [deleted] on 14/01/2020 at 14:12 UTC

4 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)

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

View parent comment

Well, a particularly important aspect of philosophy are "thought experiments", which the "repugnant conclusion" is the conclusion of one such case. Thought experiments set the variables in a particular way. You then apply your moral theory, and, in accordance with the way you've set your variables, assess the outcomes.

• IF* your variables contend that the "most good", measured in absolute terms, is the preferred option, then, stepping through utilitiarianism, which seeks to optimize utility (in this case, the most absolute good), the natural conclusion is the "repugnant conclusion". Numerically speaking, 50 billion wretches each with 1 unit of "good" is, in absolute terms, *just as morally good* as 500 million people with 100 units of "good" (both "units of good" amounting to 50 billion).

I think we can see why this is a problem, which is why the "repugnant conclusion" is, well, *repugnant*.

So, what do philosophers do? Reframe the thought exercise and try to find ways that make things better. For instance, instead of assuming an absolute value of good for the utility function, how about assuming a ratio of those suffering abject evil to those that don't? At least that you can optimize (eliminating evil reduces it to zero, whereas pursuing good is infinitely unattainable).

Replies

There's nothing here!