Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Classical utilitarianism is subject to the repugnant conc... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Classical utilitarianism is subject to the repugnant conclusion.

    ConsequentialismJustice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Classical utilitarianism, as formulated by Bentham and Mill, aggregates welfare by summing individual utilities without discounting for population size.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any theory that sums unbounded quantities across arbitrarily large populations must treat sufficiently large numbers of marginal welfare units as outweighing any finite stock of high welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, classical utilitarianism's own aggregative logic entails preferring Parfit's 'Z-world' of billions barely worth living over a smaller flourishing population.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Parfit demonstrated in 'Reasons and Persons' (1984) that the Repugnant Conclusion follows from any strictly additive, person-affecting-neutral axiology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Classical utilitarianism is committed to both strict additivity and neutrality regarding which persons exist, as Sidgwick's 'Methods of Ethics' makes explicit in its impartial summation principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Classical utilitarianism holds that a world is better if it has a larger sum-total of welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A world with a very large number of individuals whose welfare levels are barely above zero can have a larger sum-total of welfare than a world with a smaller number of very well-off individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, classical utilitarianism must count the large, barely-positive-welfare world as better than the smaller, flourishing world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil2 linked

    Related

    A world with a very large number of individuals whose welfare levels are barely ...Any theory that sums unbounded quantities across arbitrarily large populations m...Because these two structural commitments are individually sufficient to generate...Classical utilitarianism holds that a world is better if it has a larger sum-tot...
    +5 moreShow less
    Classical utilitarianism is committed to both strict additivity and neutrality r...Classical utilitarianism, as formulated by Bentham and Mill, aggregates welfare ...Parfit demonstrated in 'Reasons and Persons' (1984) that the Repugnant Conclusio...Therefore, classical utilitarianism must count the large, barely-positive-welfar...Therefore, classical utilitarianism's own aggregative logic entails preferring P...

    Similar

    Sum-utilitarianism implies the repugnant conclusion: a sufficiently la...80%Act utilitarianism collapses these distinctions, but sanction utilitar...80%Negative utilitarianism holds that an act is morally wrong if and only...80%Sanction utilitarianism holds that any action is wrong to which one ou...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: social-choice
    View source passageHide passage
    Parfit (1984) and others argued that classical utilitarianism is subject to the repugnant conclusion: a world with a very large number of individuals whose welfare levels are barely above zero could have a larger sum-total of welfare, and therefore count as better, than a world with a smaller number of very well-off individuals.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit