The thing is, you never actually get to Z. if you do add people and enough resources for their bare minimum, you approach Z from above but never actually reach it—the standard of living never drops below the bare minimum.
It is perhaps cheating to say that Z is when average utility drops below the bare minimum. If the Repugnant Conclusion is that we prefer A to Z, even though all the lives in both are worth living, then that is another matter.
Lives in Z are stipulated to be above the neutral level so they are better lived than not. The repugnancy is that they are barely worth living, so just above this level, and most people find that a very large population of lives barely worth living is not preferable to a smaller one with very good lives.
most people find that a very large population of lives barely worth living is not preferable to a smaller one with very good lives.
Sure, so adding poor people to a rich world and averaging out the resources is bad, not good, and we shouldn’t do it. It seems to me that the argument that the argument for adding people doesn’t take into account this preference for a few rich over many poor.
Also, there may be anthropic reasons for that preference: would you rather be born as one of 500 rich, or one of 10,000 poor? Now, would you rather a 5% chance of existing as a rich person (95% not-exist) or a 100% chance of existing as a poor person?
Sure, so adding poor people to a rich world and averaging out the resources is bad, not good, and we shouldn’t do it.
Which step(s) do you disagree with? Adding poor people or averaging the utility?
Parfit defends the first step by saying that it’s a “mere addition”. Poor people on they’re own are (somewhat) good. Rich people on their own are good. Therefore the combination of the two is better than either.
The second step (averaging the resources) is supposed to be intuitively obvious. We can tweak the mathematics so that the quality of life of the rich only goes down a tiny amount to bring the poor up to their level. If the rich could end all poverty by giving a very small amount wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?
The thing is, you never actually get to Z. if you do add people and enough resources for their bare minimum, you approach Z from above but never actually reach it—the standard of living never drops below the bare minimum.
It is perhaps cheating to say that Z is when average utility drops below the bare minimum. If the Repugnant Conclusion is that we prefer A to Z, even though all the lives in both are worth living, then that is another matter.
Lives in Z are stipulated to be above the neutral level so they are better lived than not. The repugnancy is that they are barely worth living, so just above this level, and most people find that a very large population of lives barely worth living is not preferable to a smaller one with very good lives.
Sure, so adding poor people to a rich world and averaging out the resources is bad, not good, and we shouldn’t do it. It seems to me that the argument that the argument for adding people doesn’t take into account this preference for a few rich over many poor.
Also, there may be anthropic reasons for that preference: would you rather be born as one of 500 rich, or one of 10,000 poor? Now, would you rather a 5% chance of existing as a rich person (95% not-exist) or a 100% chance of existing as a poor person?
Which step(s) do you disagree with? Adding poor people or averaging the utility?
Parfit defends the first step by saying that it’s a “mere addition”. Poor people on they’re own are (somewhat) good. Rich people on their own are good. Therefore the combination of the two is better than either.
The second step (averaging the resources) is supposed to be intuitively obvious. We can tweak the mathematics so that the quality of life of the rich only goes down a tiny amount to bring the poor up to their level. If the rich could end all poverty by giving a very small amount wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?