What should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion?

Stéphane Zuber; Nikhil Venkatesh; Torbjörn Tännsjö; Christian Tarsney; H. Orri Stefánsson; Katie Steele; Dean Spears; Jeff Sebo; Marcus Pivato; Toby Ord; Yew Kwang Ng; Michal Masny; William Macaskill; Nicholas Lawson; Kevin Kuruc; Michelle Hutchinson; Johan E. Gustafsson; Hilary Greaves; Lisa Forsberg; Marc Fleurbaey; Diane Coffey; Susumu Cato; Clinton Castro; Tim Campbell; Mark Budolfson; John Broome; Alexander Berger; Nick Beckstead; Geir B. Asheim

doi:10.1017/S095382082100011X

What should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion?

Stéphane Zuber, Nikhil Venkatesh, Torbjörn Tännsjö, Christian Tarsney, H. Orri Stefánsson, Katie Steele, Dean Spears, Jeff Sebo, Marcus Pivato, Toby Ord, Yew Kwang Ng, Michal Masny, William Macaskill, Nicholas Lawson, Kevin Kuruc, Michelle Hutchinson, Johan E. Gustafsson, Hilary Greaves, Lisa Forsberg, Marc FleurbaeyDiane Coffey, Susumu Cato, Clinton Castro, Tim Campbell, Mark Budolfson, John Broome, Alexander Berger, Nick Beckstead, Geir B. Asheim

Department of Economics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Other › peer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation, For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though its members have lives that are barely worth living. (Parfit 1984: 388)

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	379-383
Number of pages	5
Journal	Utilitas
Volume	33
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S095382082100011X
Publication status	Published - Dec 2021

Access to Document

10.1017/S095382082100011XLicence: CC BY

342543042-oaFinal published version, 215 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Zuber, S., Venkatesh, N., Tännsjö, T., Tarsney, C., Stefánsson, H. O., Steele, K., Spears, D., Sebo, J., Pivato, M., Ord, T., Ng, Y. K., Masny, M., Macaskill, W., Lawson, N., Kuruc, K., Hutchinson, M., Gustafsson, J. E., Greaves, H., Forsberg, L., ... Asheim, G. B. (2021). What should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion? Utilitas, 33(4), 379-383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095382082100011X

@article{16629ff7cd1d4291b7d40873efef0c84,

title = "What should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion?",

abstract = "The Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation, For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though its members have lives that are barely worth living. (Parfit 1984: 388)",

author = "St{\'e}phane Zuber and Nikhil Venkatesh and Torbj{\"o}rn T{\"a}nnsj{\"o} and Christian Tarsney and Stef{\'a}nsson, {H. Orri} and Katie Steele and Dean Spears and Jeff Sebo and Marcus Pivato and Toby Ord and Ng, {Yew Kwang} and Michal Masny and William Macaskill and Nicholas Lawson and Kevin Kuruc and Michelle Hutchinson and Gustafsson, {Johan E.} and Hilary Greaves and Lisa Forsberg and Marc Fleurbaey and Diane Coffey and Susumu Cato and Clinton Castro and Tim Campbell and Mark Budolfson and John Broome and Alexander Berger and Nick Beckstead and Asheim, {Geir B.}",

year = "2021",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1017/S095382082100011X",

language = "English",

volume = "33",

pages = "379--383",

journal = "Utilitas",

issn = "0953-8208",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

number = "4",

}

Zuber, S, Venkatesh, N, Tännsjö, T, Tarsney, C, Stefánsson, HO, Steele, K, Spears, D, Sebo, J, Pivato, M, Ord, T, Ng, YK, Masny, M, Macaskill, W, Lawson, N, Kuruc, K, Hutchinson, M, Gustafsson, JE, Greaves, H, Forsberg, L, Fleurbaey, M, Coffey, D, Cato, S, Castro, C, Campbell, T, Budolfson, M, Broome, J, Berger, A, Beckstead, N & Asheim, GB 2021, 'What should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion?', Utilitas, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 379-383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095382082100011X