IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/utilit/v14y2002i03p339-359_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why We Ought to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion

Author

Listed:
  • Tannsjo, Torbjorn

Abstract

Derek Parfit has famously pointed out that ‘total’ utilitarian views, such as classical hedonistic utilitarianism, lead to the conclusion that, to each population of quite happy persons there corresponds a more extensive population with people living lives just worth living, which is (on the whole) better. In particular, 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. This world is better if the sum total of well-being is great enough, and it is great enough if only enough sentient beings inhabit it. This conclusion has been considered by Parfit and others to be ‘repugnant’.

Suggested Citation

  • Tannsjo, Torbjorn, 2002. "Why We Ought to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 339-359, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:14:y:2002:i:03:p:339-359_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0953820800003642/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Spears, Dean, 2019. "The Asymmetry of Population Ethics: Experimental Social Choice and Dual-Process Moral Reasoning," IZA Discussion Papers 12537, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:14:y:2002:i:03:p:339-359_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/uti .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.