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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Sum-utilitarianism implies the repugnant conclusion: a sufficiently large but unhappy population is preferable to a small and happy one.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sum-utilitarianism aggregates utilities across all individuals to compute social welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A sufficiently large population with very low but positive utilities can produce a greater aggregate utility than a small population with high utilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sum-utilitarianism defines welfare aggregation as strictly additive, with no diminishing weight assigned to additional lives at lower utility levels.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parfit's Mere Addition Paradox demonstrates that each incremental step toward a larger, worse-off population appears locally rational under additive aggregation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If local transitivity holds across all such steps, the global comparison between Z-world and A-world is entailed by the theory's own internal logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bentham's original felicific calculus assigns moral weight to the sum of pleasures minus pains, treating each sentient subject as counting for one and none for more than one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This principle of equal counting entails that a billion lives at barely-positive utility mathematically dominate a million lives at high utility when the aggregate difference is positive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No structural feature of classical sum-utilitarianism permits a lexical or threshold-based override that would block this calculation without abandoning the theory's foundational commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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