Mere addition paradox
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 compelling assertions about the relative value of populations. Parfit’s original formulation of the repugnant conclusion is that, “For any perfectly equal population with very high positive welfare, there is a population with very low positive welfare which is better, other things being equal.”
Mere addition paradox - Wikipedia Jump to content From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Problem in ethics Part of a series on Utilitarianism Predecessors Mozi Shantideva Francis Hutcheson David Hume Claude Adrien Helvétius Cesare Beccaria William Paley William Godwin Intellectuals Jeremy Bentham James Mill John Stuart Mill Herbert Spencer Henry Sidgwick R. M. Hare Peter Singer Types Act Average Classical Negative Preference Rule Total Two-level Concepts Consequentialism Eudaimonia Equal consideration Felicific calculus Happiness Pain Pleasure Social choice rule Suffering Utility Problems Deman
Explore this link on the map →related reading
- The Repugnant Conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)plato.stanford.edu
- Parfit Bio - SJ BEARDsjbeard.weebly.com
- Derek Parfit - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- How To Be Good | The New Yorkernewyorker.com
- Berkson's paradox - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- The Lifespan Dilemma — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Abilene paradox - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- Why I am not an effective altruist - by Erik Hoeltheintrinsicperspective.com
- Reason and romance: The world's most cerebral marriageprospectmagazine.co.uk
- The Tails Coming Apart As Metaphor For Life — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Sorites paradox - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- Utilitarianism - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org