Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6f6fcd54b-6rwzl Total loading time: 0.234 Render date: 2021-05-11T17:31:12.277Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: {}

What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2021

Stéphane Zuber
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics, CNRS
Nikhil Venkatesh
Affiliation:
University College London
Torbjörn Tännsjö
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Christian Tarsney
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
H. Orri Stefánsson
Affiliation:
Stockholm University, SCAS (Uppsala), and Institute for Futures Studies (Stockholm)
Katie Steele
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Dean Spears
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin, ISI-Delhi, IZA (Bonn), Institute for Futures Studies (Stockholm), and r.i.c.e (Lucknow)
Jeff Sebo
Affiliation:
New York University
Marcus Pivato
Affiliation:
CY Cergy Paris Université
Toby Ord
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Yew-Kwang Ng
Affiliation:
Peking University and Monash University
Michal Masny
Affiliation:
Princeton University
William MacAskill
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Nicholas Lawson
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Kevin Kuruc
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma
Michelle Hutchinson
Affiliation:
80,000 Hours (Oxford)
Johan E. Gustafsson
Affiliation:
University of York, University of Gothenburg, and Institute for Futures Studies (Stockholm)
Hilary Greaves
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Lisa Forsberg
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Marc Fleurbaey
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics
Diane Coffey
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Susumu Cato
Affiliation:
University of Tokyo
Clinton Castro
Affiliation:
Florida International University
Tim Campbell
Affiliation:
Institute for Futures Studies
Mark Budolfson
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
John Broome
Affiliation:
University of Oxford and Australian National University
Alexander Berger
Affiliation:
Open Philanthropy (San Francisco)
Nick Beckstead
Affiliation:
Open Philanthropy (San Francisco)
Geir B. Asheim
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation,

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: 388)

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

The Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation,

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 Reference Parfit1984: 388)

This conclusion has been the subject of several formal proofs of incompatibility in the literature (Ng Reference Ng1989; Arrhenius Reference Arrhenius2000, forthcoming) and has been an enduring focus of population ethics.

The Repugnant Conclusion served an important purpose in catalyzing and inspiring the pioneering stage of population ethics research. We believe, however, that the Repugnant Conclusion now receives too much focus. Avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion should no longer be the central goal driving population ethics research, despite its importance to the fundamental accomplishments of the existing literature.

1. What we agree on

We agree on the following:

  1. 1. The fact that an approach to population ethics (an axiology or a social ordering) entails the Repugnant Conclusion is not sufficient to conclude that the approach is inadequate. Equivalently, avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion is not a necessary condition for a minimally adequate candidate axiology, social ordering, or approach to population ethics.

  2. 2. The fact that the Repugnant Conclusion is implied by many plausible principles of axiology and social welfare is not a reason to doubt the existence or coherence of ethics and value theory (although we do not rule out that there may be other reasons for moral skepticism).

  3. 3. Further properties of axiologies or social orderings – beyond their avoidance of the Repugnant Conclusion – are important, should be given importance and may prove decisive.

To clarify what we do not claim in our agreements 1, 2, and 3:

  • We do not here endorse or oppose the Repugnant Conclusion, nor total utilitarianism, nor indeed any specific approach.

  • We do not here support or oppose any population policy, nor make any claim about any empirical consequence of population growth for sustainability or other outcomes.

  • Our shared claim that avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion is not necessary does not take a position on whether avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion is desirable in evaluating a candidate axiology, social ordering, or approach to population ethics.

  • We do not claim or deny that the Repugnant Conclusion is meaningful or well-defined, nor that a life worth living is well-defined (see Broome Reference Broome2004 and more detail in the next section).

2. Brief summaries of alternative paths to the claims we agree on

Among us, we disagree about some of the reasons for, and implications of, our agreements in Section 1. In the rest of this statement, we summarize the alternative arguments by which various authors reach our shared conclusions. About what follows, we disagree with one another. Each of us endorses at least one of the following arguments and some of us reject one or more of these arguments.

The intuition that the Repugnant Conclusion is repugnant may be unreliable. Rejecting the Repugnant Conclusion depends crucially on our intuitions. These intuitions can be unreliable for a number of reasons. (i) The Repugnant Conclusion depends crucially on intuitions about cases with very large numbers of people. The size of such very large numbers is hard to grasp on an intuitive level (Broome Reference Broome2004; Huemer Reference Huemer2008; Gustafsson, Reference Gustafssonforthcoming). (ii) It may be hard to avoid implicitly including ourselves in the populations we imagine. If so, we may have an egoistic bias in favor of populations with a high quality of life (Tännsjö Reference Tännsjö2002; Huemer Reference Huemer2008). (iii) We are also bad at compounding small numbers. We may therefore fail to see how lots of lives with a small but positive value could add up to something very valuable (Huemer Reference Huemer2008). (iv) Finally, we may wrongly take lives that are “barely worth living” to be bad rather than good (Huemer Reference Huemer2008). Or we may be misled by standard examples of lives “barely worth living” in the literature: lives in such examples may appear to be or in fact be not worth living or even worth not living (Hutchinson Reference Hutchinson2014); may be not much worse than our lives; or, alternatively, may be well worth living.

The impossibility theorems in population ethics can be read as strong arguments for the Repugnant Conclusion. If so, the aggregation of many worthwhile lives may indeed be better than a moderate number of very good lives (Tännsjö Reference Tännsjö2002, Reference Tännsjö2020; Adler Reference Adler2008; Huemer Reference Huemer2008). 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 Reference Cowen1996). 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 Reference Anglin1977; Budolfson and Spears Reference Budolfson and Spears2018; Spears and Budolfson Reference Spears and Budolfson2021).

An approach that entails the Repugnant Conclusion need not entail any repugnant recommendations in practice. The Repugnant Conclusion assumes that the size of potential populations is unbounded. It may be unrealistic that the much larger population in the Repugnant Conclusion could ever exist. Indeed, approaches that imply the Repugnant Conclusion may turn out to agree with approaches that avoid the Repugnant Conclusion in all feasible or in all relevant decision-making contexts (Arrhenius et al. Reference Arrhenius, Budolfson, Spears, Budolfson, McPherson and Plunkett2020). In addition, the reasons why we accept an approach may be the result of a reflective equilibrium that entails considering the implications of the approach in specific contexts. In this reflective equilibrium, consequences for practically relevant cases may be more important than principles for infeasible cases (Fleurbaey and Tungodden Reference Fleurbaey and Tungodden2010). For example, one could argue for critical-level generalized utilitarianism if separability appears plausible but mere addition appears implausible in practical, bounded cases – without making any reference to the Repugnant Conclusion.

If there is no logically prior concept of a life worth living, then the Repugnant Conclusion may be ill-defined. Although the Repugnant Conclusion necessarily uses a concept of a life barely worth living, it might not be legitimate to use this concept for at least two reasons. (i) It may not be clear what we mean by “a life worth living” and whether it exists outside of a specific context (Broome Reference Broome, Koslowski and Shionoya1993, Reference Broome2004). (ii) One may further argue that whether additional lives make a population better depends on the full social ordering. For either of these reasons, we might be unable to evaluate the Repugnant Conclusion. If so, the Repugnant Conclusion and any principle relying on a logically prior value for the critical level would not be a useful guide to choosing among approaches.

If one accepts a person-affecting approach, then the large population may be at least as good (or as permissible) as the small population in cases where the persons in each are different. If a life barely worth living is the best accessible life for each person in the large population then a person-affecting approach may see no reason to prefer the smaller population (Parfit Reference Parfit1984: 395; Roberts Reference Roberts, Hirose and Olson2015). Of course, such a specific large population may be unlikely ever to be a practically available option, but the Repugnant Conclusion requires only an “imaginable” case. So, with such a person-affecting approach, entailing the Repugnant Conclusion in this way (and possibly others) would not indicate inadequacy.

3. Conclusion

Late in his career, Parfit revised his prior arguments regarding the Repugnant Conclusion, calling his prior reasoning a “mistake” on the grounds that “We cannot justifiably reject strong arguments merely by claiming that their conclusions are implausible” (Parfit Reference Parfit2017: 154). Parfit might never have agreed with our claims 1, 2, and 3, but we agree with him that conclusions that appear implausible are sometimes true.

Ethical arguments are widely used in public debate, everyday decision-making, and policy-making. For example, ethical arguments against social inequality and discrimination are common – although not universal, not always successful, and not always correct. Many public decisions affect the world's future population. Population ethics is therefore an essential foundation for making these decisions properly. It is not simply an academic exercise, and we should not let it be governed by undue attention to one consideration. Perhaps someday the correct approach to axiology, social welfare, or population ethics will be agreed upon among experts. If so, we do not know whether the approach used will entail the Repugnant Conclusion. We should keep our minds open.

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by a Dr. Cécile DeWitt-Morette France-UT Endowed Excellence Grant; by grants K01HD098313 and P2CHD042849 awarded to the Population Research Center at UT-Austin by the NICHD (the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health); and by the Agence nationale de la recherche through the Investissements d'Avenir program (ANR-17-EURE-01).

References

Adler, Matthew. 2008. Future Generations: A Prioritarian View, George Washington Law Review, 77.5–6: 1478–520.Google Scholar
Anglin, Bill. 1977. The Repugnant Conclusion, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7.4: 745–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrhenius, Gustaf. 2000. An Impossibility Theorem for Welfarist Axiologies, Economics and Philosophy, 16.2: 247–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrhenius, Gustaf. Forthcoming. Population Ethics: The Challenge of Future Generations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Arrhenius, Gustaf, Budolfson, Mark, and Spears, Dean. 2020. Does Climate Change Policy Depend Importantly on Population Ethics? Deflationary Responses to the Challenges of Population Ethics for Public Policy, in Philosophy and Climate Change, ed. by Budolfson, Mark, McPherson, Tristram, and Plunkett, David (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 111–36.Google Scholar
Broome, John. 1993. Goodness Is Reducible to Betterness: The Evil of Death Is the Value of Life, in The Good and the Economical: Ethical Choices in Economics and Management, Ethical Economy, ed. by Koslowski, Peter and Shionoya, Yuichi (Berlin: Springer), pp. 7084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John. 2004. Weighing Lives (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budolfson, Mark and Spears, Dean. 2018. Why the Repugnant Conclusion Is Inescapable. Princeton University Climate Futures Initiative working paper.Google Scholar
Cowen, Tyler. 1996. What Do We Learn from the Repugnant Conclusion?, Ethics, 106.4: 754–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, Marc and Tungodden, Bertil. 2010. The Tyranny of Non-Aggregation versus the Tyranny of Aggregation in Social Choices: A Real Dilemma, Economic Theory, 44.3: 399414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, Johan E. Forthcoming. Our Intuitive Grasp of the Repugnant Conclusion, in The Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. 2008. In Defence of Repugnance, Mind 117.468: 899933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, Michelle. 2014. The Ethics of Extending and Creating Life (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford).Google Scholar
Ng, Yew-Kwang. 1989. What Should We Do about Future Generations? Impossibility of Parfit's Theory X, Economics and Philosophy, 5.2: 135253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 2017. Future People, the Non-Identity Problem, and Person-Affecting Principles, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 45.2: 118–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Melinda. 2015. Population Axiology, in The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory, ed. by Hirose, Iwao and Olson, Jonas (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 399423.Google Scholar
Spears, Dean and Budolfson, Mark. 2021. Repugnant Conclusions, Social Choice and Welfare, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-021-01321-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 2002. Why We Ought to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion, Utilitas, 14.3: 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 2020. Why Derek Parfit Had Reasons to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion, Utilitas 32.4: 387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *