What you’re calling population ethics is very similar to what most people call politics; indeed, I see politics as the logical extension of ethics when generalized to groups of people. I’m curious about whether there is some item in your description that would invalidate this comparison.
the practice and theory of influencing other people.
Politics involves the making of a common decision for a group of people
a uniform decision applying in the same way to all members of the group
contains a matching with choosing among available actions in a group for the benefit of the group.
The main difference to what I meant (ahem) is that politics describes the real thing with unequal power whereas population ethics prescribes independent of the decision makers power.
What you’re calling population ethics is very similar to what most people call politics; indeed, I see politics as the logical extension of ethics when generalized to groups of people. I’m curious about whether there is some item in your description that would invalidate this comparison.
Ethics is a part of philosophy, political philosophy, also being a part of philosophy, would be a better analogy than politics itself, I think.
I did look up Wikipedia on population ethics and considered
to be matching if you generalize by substitution of “number of people” with “well-being of people”.
But I admit that politics
contains a matching with choosing among available actions in a group for the benefit of the group. The main difference to what I meant (ahem) is that politics describes the real thing with unequal power whereas population ethics prescribes independent of the decision makers power.