The Repugnant Conclusion

Abstract

On an act utilitarian view it is morally permissible if not obligatory to choose to perform an action which contributes as much as any other action to the total happiness (utility) of all those capable of enjoying happiness. As the view has just been stated, however, there is some question of how we are to understand the phrase “all those capable of enjoying happiness”. For even leaving aside the possibility that animals or spirits might be included, there is still the matter of the size of the population of humans “capable of enjoying happiness”. Furthermore, among our ethical decisions themselves are decisions which would cause a decrease or increase in population and which in perhaps even more specific ways determine the applicability of this phrase “all those capable of enjoying happiness”. According to the socalled classical or total utilitarian principle, the phrase in question is understood as describing some population whose existence will enable one to maximize the net amount of happiness. For on the classical principle what one is obligated to do is simply to maximize net happiness.

What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?

“…It is not unusual for social evaluations in other settings to weigh options in this way; for example, there are well-studied unintuitive consequences of aggregation in same-number cases (Cowen 1996). Moreover, any repugnance in Parfit's initial illustration of the Repugnant Conclusion is also found in addition cases, where lives are added to an unaffected sub-population (such as the set of past people); therefore, such repugnance is entailed even by average utilitarianism and other views that are commonly understood to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion (Anglin 1977; Budolfson and Spears 2018; Spears and Budolfson 2021).…”

Why Variable-Population Social Orderings Cannot Escape the Repugnant Conclusion: Proofs and Implications

“…Although without the same formalization, emphasis, or scope as our paper, prior arguments in this direction have been made in the philosophy literature byAnglin (1977) andCowen (1996).…”

“…9 Arrhenius (n.d.) uses an equivalent condition called the Strong Quality Addition Principle; Anglin (1977) Table 1: Repugnant conclusions n = 0 n ≥ 0 n(v) = 0 restricted repugnant conclusion restricted very repugnant conclusion n(v) ≥ 0 repugnant conclusion very repugnant conclusion Arrhenius (2003) introduced the very repugnant conclusion, which intensified the repugnant conclusion by stipulating that the ε lives are accompanied by a large number of highly negative utility lives, full of suffering and not nearly worth living, which could be avoided by choosing the u h -lives. Like Parfit's original example of the repugnant conclusion Arrhenius' very repugnant conclusion is restricted, in our formal sense: it does not include an intersecting, unaffected subpopulation v. Therefore, we introduce an unrestricted definition, which we propose should be used to capture further instances of the very repugnant conclusion: Definition 3 (The (unrestricted) very repugnant conclusion).…”

Against Equality and Priority

“…But some philosophers embrace the Repugnant Conclusion. 21 They do not do this because they value population size intrinsically. Rather, these philosophers explain the truth of the Repugnant Conclusion in terms of the value of (total) utility.…”