Rule consequentialism evaluates principles by total welfare outcomes, which Parfit's 'repugnant conclusion' shows can require accepting principles no individual could reasonably endorse.

?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.

Derek Parfit(as a philosopher being cited for his theory on personal identity): A highly influential philosopher who argued that personal identity (what makes you 'you' over time) is less important than we think, and that we're not the unified, continuous selves we assume we are.
Endorse(as used in this philosophical argument): To approve of, support, or agree with something.
Parfit's repugnant conclusion(as used in ethics): A famous problem identified by philosopher Derek Parfit showing that if you only care about total happiness in the world, you'd have to accept that creating billions of lives with barely-worth-living happiness would be good, as long as the total adds up.
consequentialism(Applied to terrorism and legal punishment): The view that practices are judged solely by their consequences, such that a practice is wrong only if it has bad consequences on balance.

Based on where you are in your exploration