I think that this was a good attempt, but it is still flawed. As pointed out by Owencb, our intuition that it would be bad for a large underclass with a life barely worth living to exist comes from us postulating a life barely worth living, then adding in the harms of being in an underclass which would push it into a life not worth living. If we accept that these lives are still positive, then there is no benefit from replacing these people with a single victim. Additionally, we can get the sadistic conclusion in a universe where most people’s lives are not worth living by choosing to add another person whose life is not worth living, but whose life is less bad on average.
Additionally, we can get the sadistic conclusion in a universe where most people’s lives are not worth living by choosing to add another person whose life is not worth living, but whose life is less bad on average.
That’s only true for some systems (eg average utilitarianism). All sensible non-total utilitarian population ethics have some “sadistic” conclusions, but that doesn’t mean that they have all sadistic conclusions.
I think that this was a good attempt, but it is still flawed. As pointed out by Owencb, our intuition that it would be bad for a large underclass with a life barely worth living to exist comes from us postulating a life barely worth living, then adding in the harms of being in an underclass which would push it into a life not worth living. If we accept that these lives are still positive, then there is no benefit from replacing these people with a single victim. Additionally, we can get the sadistic conclusion in a universe where most people’s lives are not worth living by choosing to add another person whose life is not worth living, but whose life is less bad on average.
That’s only true for some systems (eg average utilitarianism). All sensible non-total utilitarian population ethics have some “sadistic” conclusions, but that doesn’t mean that they have all sadistic conclusions.