What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?
Overview & Synopsis
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)
Indexed from repository: HAL Open Science
(
hal.science)
Keyboard Shortcuts:
← / → for pages • + / - for zoom • 0 to fit width
Powered by Mozilla PDF.js v3.11
Document Information
| Document Title | What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? |
|---|---|
| Author / Organization | Stéphane Zuber, Nikhil Venkatesh, Torbjörn Tännsjö, Christian Tarsney, H. Orri 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 |
| Subject & Discipline | Multidisciplinary Academic Open Research |
| Categories | Science & Mathematics |
| Publication Year | 2021 |
| License / Rights | Open Access / Creative Commons |
| Resource Verification | Listed PDF (Verification Pending) |
| Original Host Website |
HAL Open Science
(hal.science)
|
| File Format | application/pdf (Portable Document Format) |
| Language | EN |
| Catalog ID | DOC-196952 |
| Original Source Link | Visit Source Page on hal.science » |