David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 7 (2):189-206 (1995)
In Chapter 17 of his magnificent Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit asks what he describes as an ‘awesome question’: ‘How many people should there ever be?’ For a utilitarian like me, the answer seems simple: there should be however many people it takes to make the world best. Unfortunately, if I answer Parfit's awesome question in this way, I may sink myself in a quagmire of axiological confusion. In this paper, I first describe certain aspects of the quagmire. Then I introduce and explain some of the elements of a novel axiological view – ‘justicism’. Justicism is derived from some ideas originally suggested by Franz Brentano. It was developed in an effort to solve certain other problems confronting utilitarianism – problems explicitly about justice. I think, however, that as a sort of happy by-product, justicism also generates a plausible answer to Parfit's awesome question. This may come as a bit of surprise, since justicism is a form of totalism, and it is widely thought that no totalistic theory can provide a satisfactory answer to Parfit's question. After presenting and explaining my proposed solution, I address some objections.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Justin Klocksiem (2016). How to Accept the Transitivity of Better Than. Philosophical Studies 173 (5):1309-1334.
Kalle Grill (forthcoming). Asymmetric Population Axiology: Deliberative Neutrality Delivered. Philosophical Studies:1-18.
Clark Wolf (1996). Social Choice and Normative Population Theory: A Person Affecting Solution to Parfit's Mere Addition Paradox. Philosophical Studies 81 (2-3):263 - 282.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2003). Egalitarianism and Repugnant Conclusions. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 38:115-125.
Michael Huemer (2008). In Defence of Repugnance. Mind 117 (468):899-933.
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
Stuart Rachels (2004). Repugnance or Intransitivity: A Repugnant but Forced Choice. In The Repugnant Conclusion: Essays on Population Ethics.
Kristján Kristjánsson (2005). A Utilitarian Justification of Desert in Distributive Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (2):147-170.
Serena Olsaretti (ed.) (2003). Desert and Justice. Oxford University Press.
Douglas W. Portmore (1999). Does the Total Principle Have Any Repugnant Implications? Ratio 12 (1):80–98.
Carl Knight (2011). Responsibility, Desert, and Justice. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Responsibility and Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press
Jeffrey Moriarty (2003). Against the Asymmetry of Desert. Noûs 37 (3):518–536.
Jesper Ryberg (1996). Is the Repugnant Conclusion Repugnant? Philosophical Papers 25 (3):161-177.
Jesper Ryberg, Torbjörn Tännsjö & Gustaf Arrhenius (2006). The Repugnant Conclusion. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online; Last Accessed October 4:2006.
Jesper Ryberg, The Repugnant Conclusion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jeffrey Moriarty (2013). Smilansky, Arneson, and the Asymmetry of Desert. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):537-545.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads70 ( #59,056 of 1,792,985 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #66,042 of 1,792,985 )
How can I increase my downloads?