IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v36y2020i1p81-110_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Population axiology and the possibility of a fourth category of absolute value

Author

Listed:
  • Gustafsson, Johan E.

Abstract

Critical-Range Utilitarianism is a variant of Total Utilitarianism which can avoid both the Repugnant Conclusion and the Sadistic Conclusion in population ethics. Yet Standard Critical-Range Utilitarianism entails the Weak Sadistic Conclusion, that is, it entails that each population consisting of lives at a bad well-being level is not worse than some population consisting of lives at a good well-being level. In this paper, I defend a version of Critical-Range Utilitarianism which does not entail the Weak Sadistic Conclusion. This is made possible by what I call ‘undistinguishedness’, a fourth category of absolute value in addition to goodness, badness, and neutrality.

Suggested Citation

  • Gustafsson, Johan E., 2020. "Population axiology and the possibility of a fourth category of absolute value," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 81-110, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:36:y:2020:i:1:p:81-110_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267119000087/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. Gustafsson, Johan E. & Spears, Dean & Zuber, Stéphane, 2023. "Utilitarianism Is Implied by Social and Individual Dominance," IZA Discussion Papers 16561, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Christian Tarsney & Harvey Lederman & Dean Spears, 2024. "Share the Sugar," Papers 2403.17641, arXiv.org.

    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:ecnphi:v:36:y:2020:i:1:p:81-110_4. 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/eap .

    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.