Repugnant Thoughts about the Repugnant Conclusion Argument

Abstract

The Repugnant Conclusion Argument can be construed as follows. Calculating within the framework of utilitarian theory, we can contrast two states of affairs. The first, call it N, represents a state where the world human population has reached beyond five billion and where most people still live (let us suppose) a life worth living. The second state, call it O, has a larger population—let us say beyond six billion. Life in O is also still worth living, but less so when compared to N. Nonetheless, utilitarian calculations might recommend that we seek the life in O over N because the total utility in O is greater. The greater number of people in O compensates for a small loss in quality of life for each person. The Repugnant Conclusion Argument now urges us to consider state P where the population is still larger, quality of life still lower, but where the total utility is still higher. Again, the more people around makes up for the fact that they are less happy. Eventually, we arrive at state Z where the population is horrendously larger than in N and the quality of life disturbingly lower, even though it is still (barely) worth living. The argument now says that, nonetheless, we may be forced to conclude repugnantly that Z is preferred to N since the total utility in Z is greater than N, O, P… or Y.