What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?

Stéphane Zuber, Nikhil Venkatesh, Torbjörn Tännsjö, Christian Tarsney, H. Orri Stefánsson, Katie Steele, Dean Spears*, Jeff Sebo, Marcus Pivato, Toby Ord, Yew Kwang Ng, Michal Masny, William MacAskill, Nicholas Lawson, Kevin Kuruc, Michelle Hutchinson, Johan E. Gustafsson, Hilary Greaves, Lisa Forsberg, Marc FleurbaeyDiane Coffey, Susumu Cato, Clinton Castro, Tim Campbell, Mark Budolfson, John Broome, Alexander Berger, Nick Beckstead, Geir B. Asheim

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    31 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)379-383
    Number of pages5
    JournalUtilitas
    Volume33
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2021

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this