Within the field of

population ethics Population ethics is the philosophical study of the ethical problems arising when our actions affect ''who'' is born and ''how many'' people are born in the future. An important area within population ethics is population axiology, which is "the s ...

, the very repugnant conclusion is a strengthened variant of the

repugnant conclusion The mere addition paradox (also known as the repugnant conclusion) is a problem in ethics identified by Derek Parfit and discussed in his book ''Reasons and Persons'' (1984). The paradox identifies the mutual incompatibility of four intuitively c ...

. It holds that, for any population experiencing very high levels of well-being, certain ethical frameworks—particularly

total utilitarianism Average and total utilitarianism (also called averagism and totalism) are variants of utilitarianism that seek to maximize the average or total amount of utility; following Henry Sidgwick's question, "Is it total or average happiness that we seek ...

—may deem it preferable to have a vastly larger population in which most individuals have lives barely worth living, and some experience significant suffering. The total sum of well-being in such a world may outweigh that of the smaller, happier population, thereby rendering it the superior outcome under specific evaluative criteria. This conclusion presents a more severe challenge to moral intuitions than the standard repugnant conclusion, as it appears to conflict with egalitarian and prioritarian values. In response, some philosophers advocate for revisions to prevailing ethical theories rather than accepting such counterintuitive implications.

The repugnant conclusion

First articulated by philosopher

Derek Parfit Derek Antony Parfit (; 11 December 1942 – 2 January 2017) was a British philosopher who specialised in personal identity, rationality, and ethics. He is widely considered one of the most important and influential moral philosophers of the lat ...

, the repugnant conclusion suggests that a very large population with lives barely worth living is better than a smaller population with a very high quality of life. This is because, according to some ethical theories, the sheer number of individuals in the larger population, even with their lower well-being, outweighs the higher well-being of the smaller population. This conclusion challenges traditional moral intuitions about the value of life and well-being.

The very repugnant conclusion

Building upon the repugnant conclusion, the very repugnant conclusion explicitly states that for any population with very high well-being, there exists a larger population with a significant number of individuals with negative well-being and many more with barely positive well-being that is still considered better. This idea further complicates the ethical landscape by introducing the possibility that a population with a mix of negative and barely positive well-being could be morally preferable to one with uniformly high well-being.

Ethical implications

The repugnant conclusion and its stronger version, the very repugnant conclusion, raise profound questions about how we should weigh the well-being of different individuals and populations. They challenge the notion that the

quality of life Quality of life (QOL) is defined by the World Health Organization as "an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards ...

is more important than the quantity of lives, suggesting that the sheer number of people in a population can outweigh the quality of their lives. This leads to a reevaluation of traditional moral intuitions and forces a deeper examination of what constitutes a good world.

References

{{Reflist Population ethics Thought experiments in ethics Philosophical paradoxes Utilitarianism

The repugnant conclusion

The very repugnant conclusion

Ethical implications

See also

References