Because these two structural commitments are individually sufficient to generate the Repugnant Conclusion, rejecting it would require abandoning core classical utilitarian architecture, not merely refining it.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Core classical utilitarian architecture(as what would need to be abandoned): The fundamental structural principles and assumptions that make up traditional utilitarianism—basically the framework's load-bearing walls.
Rejecting: # Rejecting Rejecting means refusing to accept, believe in, or approve of something. When you reject an idea, offer, or person, you are saying "no" and deciding it is not acceptable to you. In everyday life, rejecting might mean turning down a job offer, refusing to believe a claim someone makes, or deciding that a product doesn't meet your standards.
The Repugnant Conclusion(as the ethical problem Arrhenius's theorems address): A controversial idea in ethics suggesting that a world with billions of people living barely-worth-living lives could be better than a world with fewer people living excellent lives, just because the total happiness adds up to more.
Utilitarianism(One of Sidgwick's three methods of ethics): The view that an individual self-evidently ought to aim at the maximum balance of happiness for all sentient beings present and future, whatever the cost to herself; also called Universalistic Hedonism

Based on where you are in your exploration