The repugnant conclusion
| Abstract | In Derek Parfit's original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is characterized as follows: “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). The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics . The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as “Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy creatures?” and “Is there a moral obligation to have children?” The main problem has been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives, and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesStuart Rachels (2001). A Set of Solutions to Parfit's Problems. Noûs 35 (2):214–238.
Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2006). On the Repugnance of the Repugnant Conclusion. Theoria 72 (2):126-137.
Douglas W. Portmore (1999). Does the Total Principle Have Any Repugnant Implications? Ratio 12 (1):80–98.
Stuart Rachels (2004). Repugnance or Intransitivity: A Repugnant but Forced Choice. In The Repugnant Conclusion: Essays on Population Ethics.
Stuart Rachels (2004). Repugnance or Intransitivity: A Repugnant But Forced Choice. In Jesper Ryberg Torbjorn Tannsjo (ed.), The Repugnant Conclusion: Essays on Population Ethics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Michael Huemer (2008). In Defence of Repugnance. Mind 117 (468):899-933.
Jesper Ryberg, The Repugnant Conclusion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads51 ( #20,496 of 549,010 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,272 of 549,010 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
