Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-21T01:07:32.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mere Addition and Two Trilemmas of Population Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Erik Carlson
Affiliation:
Uppsala University

Extract

A principal aim of the branch of ethics called ‘population theory’ or ‘population ethics’ is to find a plausible welfarist axiology, capable of comparing total outcomes with respect to value. This has proved an exceedingly difficult task. In this paper I shall state and discuss two ‘trilemmas’, or choices between three unappealing alternatives, which the population ethicist must face. The first trilemma is not new. It originates with Derek Parfit's well-known ‘Mere Addition Paradox’, and was first explicitly stated by Yew-Kwang Ng. I shall argue that one horn of this trilemma is less unattractive than Parfit and others have claimed. The second trilemma, which is a kind of mirror image of the first, appears hitherto to have gone unnoticed. Apart from attempting to resolve the two trilemmas, I shall suggest certain features which I believe a plausible welfarist axiology should possess. The details of this projected axiology will, however, be left open.

Type
Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrhenius, Gustaf. 1997. ‘An impossibility theorem for welfarist axiologies’. Mimeo. Department of Philosophy, Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
Arrhenius, Gustaf and Bykvist, Krister. 1995. Future Generations and Interpersonal Compensations. Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy, No. 21Google Scholar
Bergström, Lars. 1966. The Alternatives and Consequences of Actions. Almqvist & WiksellGoogle Scholar
Blackorby, Charles, Bossert, Walter, and Donaldson, David. 1997. ‘Critical-level utilitarianism and the population-ethics dilemma’. Economics and Philosophy, 13:197230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackorby, Charles, Walter, Bossert, David, Donaldson, and Fleurbaey, Marc. 1997. ‘Critical levels and the (reverse) repugnant conclusion’. Mimeo. Department of Economics, University of British ColumbiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick M. 1986. Brentano and Intrinsic Value. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Cowen, Tyler. 1996. ‘What do we leam from the repugnant conclusion?Ethics, 106:754–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, James. 1986. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Hudson, James L. 1987. ‘The diminishing marginal value of happy people’. Philosophical Studies, 51:123–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurka, Thomas. 1983. ‘Value and population size’. Ethics, 93:496507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klint Jensen, Karsten. 1996. ‘Discontinuity in Value and the Repugnant Conclusion’. In Om afvejning af værdier, pp. 77109. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
McMahan, Jefferson. 1981. ‘Problems of population theory’. Ethics, 92:96127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1903. Principia Ethica. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1942. ‘A Reply to My Critics’. In The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, pp. 533677Schilpp, P. A. (ed.). The Library of Living PhilosophersGoogle Scholar
Ng, Yew-Kwang. 1989. ‘What should we do about future generations?Economics and Philosophy, 5:235–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1986. ‘Overpopulation and the Quality of Life’. In Applied Ethics, pp. 145–64. Singer, Peter (ed.). Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1996. ‘Acts and outcomes: a reply to Boonin-Vail’. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 25:308–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryberg, Jesper. 1996. ‘Parfit's repugnant conclusion’. The Philosophical Quarterly, 46:202–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Theodore R. 1991. ‘Might Theory X be a theory of diminishing marginal value?Analysis, 51:265–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, Larry. 1987. ‘Intransitivity and the mere addition paradox’. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 16:138–87Google Scholar