Why doesn’t Applied Divinity Studies’ The Repugnant Conclusion Isn’t dissolve the argumentative force of the repugnant conclusion?
But read again more carefully: “There is nothing bad in each of these lives”.
Although it sounds mundane, I contend that this is nearly incomprehensible. Can you actually imagine what it would be like to never have anything bad happen to you? We don’t describe such a as mediocre, we describe it as “charmed” or “overwhelmingly privileged”. …
… consider Parfit’s vision of World Z both seriously and literally.
These are lives with no pain, no loneliness or depression, no loss or fear, no anxiety, no aging, no disease, nor decay. Not ever a single moment of sorrow. These are lives free entirely from every minor ache and cramp, from desire, from jealousy, from greed, and from every other sin that poisons the heart. Free from the million ills that plague and poke at ordinary people.
It is thus less the world of peasants, and closer to that of subdued paradise. The closest analog we can imagine is perhaps a Buddhist sanctuary, each member so permanently, universally and profoundly enlightened that they no longer experience suffering of any kind.
And that’s not all! Parfit further tells us that their lives are net positive. And so in addition to never experiencing any unpleasantness of any degree, they also experience simple pleasures. A “little happiness”, small nearly to the point of nothingness, yet enough to tip the scales. Perhaps the warmth of basking under a beam of sun, the gentle nourishment of simple meals, or just the low-level background satisfaction of a slow Sunday morning.
Properly construed, that is the world Parfit would have us imagine. Not a mediocre world of “muzak and potatoes”, but a kind of tranquil nirvana beyond pain. And that is a world I have no problem endorsing.
First, this is not the phrase I associate with the repugnant conclusion. “Net positive” does not mean “there is nothing bad in each of these lives”.
Second, I do think a key phrase & motivating description is “all they have is muzak and potatoes”. That is all they have. I like our world where people can be and do great things. I won’t describe it in poetic terms, since I don’t think that makes good moral philosophy. If you do want something more poetic, idk read Terra Ignota or The Odyssey. Probably Terra Ignota moreso than The Odyssey.
I will say that I like doing fun things, and I think many other people like doing fun things, and though my life may be net positive sitting around in a buddhist temple all day, I would likely take a 1-in-a-million chance of death to do awesome stuff instead. And so, I think, would many others.
And we could all make a deal, we draw straws, and those 1-in-a-million who draw short give the rest their resources and are put on ice until we figure out a way to get enough resources so they could do what they love. Or, if that’s infeasible (and in most framings of the problem it seems to be), willfully die.
I mean, if nothing else, you can just gather all those who love extreme sports (which will be a non-trivial fraction of the population), and ask them to draw straws & re-consolidate the relevant resources to the winners. Their revealed preference would say “hell yes!” (we can tell, given the much lower stakes & much higher risk of the activities they’re already doing).
And I don’t think the extreme sports lovers would be the only group who would take such a deal. Anyone who loves doing anything will take that deal, and (especially in a universe with the resources able to be filled to the brim with people just above the “I’ll kill myself” line) I think most will have such a passion able to be fulfilled (even if it is brute wireheading!).
And then, if we know this will happen ahead of time—that people will risk death to celebrate their passions—why force them into that situation? We could just… not overproduce people. And that would therefore be a better solution than the repugnant one.
And these incentives we’ve set up by implementing the so-called repugnant conclusion, where people are willfully dying for the very chance to do something in fact are repugnant. And that’s why its called repugnant, even if most are unable to express why or what we lose.
A big factor against making 1-in-a-million higher for most people is the whole death aspect, but death itself is a big negative, much worse to die than to never have been born (or so I claim), so the above gives a lower bound on the factor by which the repugnant conclusion will be off by.
The Parfit quote from the blog post is taken out of context. Here is the relevant section in Parfit’s essay:
(Each box represents a possible population, with the height of a box representing how good overall an individual life is in that population, and the width representing the size of the population. The area of a box is the sum total “goodness”/”welfare”/”utility” (e.g. well-being, satisfied preferences, etc) in that population. The areas increase from A to Z, with Z being truncated here.)
Note that Parfit describes two different ways in which an individual life in Z could be barely worth living (emphasis added):
A life could be like this either because its ecstasies make its agonies seem just worth enduring, or because it is painless but drab.
Then he goes on to describe the second possibility (which is arguably unrealistic and much less likely than the first, and which contains the quote by the blog author). The author of the blog posts mistakenly ignores Parfit’s mentioning the first possibility. After talking about the second, Parfit returns (indicated by “similarly”) to the first possibility:
Similarly, Z is the outcome in which there would be the greatest quantity of whatever makes life worth living.
The “greatest quantity” here can simply be determined by the weight of all the positive things in an individual life minus the weight of all the negative things. Even if the result is just barely positive for an individual, for a large enough population, the sum welfare of the “barely net positive” individual lives would outweigh the sum for a smaller population with much higher average welfare. Yet intuitively, we should not trade a perfect utopia with relatively small population (A) for a world that is barely worth living for everyone in a huge population (Z).
That’s the problem with total utilitarianism, which simply sums all the “utilities” of the individual lives to measure the overall “utility” of a population. Taking the average instead of the sum avoids the repugnant conclusion, but it leads to other highly counterintuitive conclusions, such as that a population of a million people suffering strongly is less bad than a population of just a single person suffering slightly more strongly, as the latter has a worse average. So arguably both total and average utilitarianism are incorrect, at least without strong modifications.
(Personally I think a sufficiently developed version of person-affecting utilitarianism (an alternative to average and total utilitarianism) might well solve all these problems, though the issue is very difficult. See e.g. here.)
Why doesn’t Applied Divinity Studies’ The Repugnant Conclusion Isn’t dissolve the argumentative force of the repugnant conclusion?
First, this is not the phrase I associate with the repugnant conclusion. “Net positive” does not mean “there is nothing bad in each of these lives”.
Second, I do think a key phrase & motivating description is “all they have is muzak and potatoes”. That is all they have. I like our world where people can be and do great things. I won’t describe it in poetic terms, since I don’t think that makes good moral philosophy. If you do want something more poetic, idk read Terra Ignota or The Odyssey. Probably Terra Ignota moreso than The Odyssey.
I will say that I like doing fun things, and I think many other people like doing fun things, and though my life may be net positive sitting around in a buddhist temple all day, I would likely take a 1-in-a-million chance of death to do awesome stuff instead. And so, I think, would many others.
And we could all make a deal, we draw straws, and those 1-in-a-million who draw short give the rest their resources and are put on ice until we figure out a way to get enough resources so they could do what they love. Or, if that’s infeasible (and in most framings of the problem it seems to be), willfully die.
I mean, if nothing else, you can just gather all those who love extreme sports (which will be a non-trivial fraction of the population), and ask them to draw straws & re-consolidate the relevant resources to the winners. Their revealed preference would say “hell yes!” (we can tell, given the much lower stakes & much higher risk of the activities they’re already doing).
And I don’t think the extreme sports lovers would be the only group who would take such a deal. Anyone who loves doing anything will take that deal, and (especially in a universe with the resources able to be filled to the brim with people just above the “I’ll kill myself” line) I think most will have such a passion able to be fulfilled (even if it is brute wireheading!).
And then, if we know this will happen ahead of time—that people will risk death to celebrate their passions—why force them into that situation? We could just… not overproduce people. And that would therefore be a better solution than the repugnant one.
And these incentives we’ve set up by implementing the so-called repugnant conclusion, where people are willfully dying for the very chance to do something in fact are repugnant. And that’s why its called repugnant, even if most are unable to express why or what we lose.
A big factor against making 1-in-a-million higher for most people is the whole death aspect, but death itself is a big negative, much worse to die than to never have been born (or so I claim), so the above gives a lower bound on the factor by which the repugnant conclusion will be off by.
The Parfit quote from the blog post is taken out of context. Here is the relevant section in Parfit’s essay:
(Each box represents a possible population, with the height of a box representing how good overall an individual life is in that population, and the width representing the size of the population. The area of a box is the sum total “goodness”/”welfare”/”utility” (e.g. well-being, satisfied preferences, etc) in that population. The areas increase from A to Z, with Z being truncated here.)
Note that Parfit describes two different ways in which an individual life in Z could be barely worth living (emphasis added):
Then he goes on to describe the second possibility (which is arguably unrealistic and much less likely than the first, and which contains the quote by the blog author). The author of the blog posts mistakenly ignores Parfit’s mentioning the first possibility. After talking about the second, Parfit returns (indicated by “similarly”) to the first possibility:
The “greatest quantity” here can simply be determined by the weight of all the positive things in an individual life minus the weight of all the negative things. Even if the result is just barely positive for an individual, for a large enough population, the sum welfare of the “barely net positive” individual lives would outweigh the sum for a smaller population with much higher average welfare. Yet intuitively, we should not trade a perfect utopia with relatively small population (A) for a world that is barely worth living for everyone in a huge population (Z).
That’s the problem with total utilitarianism, which simply sums all the “utilities” of the individual lives to measure the overall “utility” of a population. Taking the average instead of the sum avoids the repugnant conclusion, but it leads to other highly counterintuitive conclusions, such as that a population of a million people suffering strongly is less bad than a population of just a single person suffering slightly more strongly, as the latter has a worse average. So arguably both total and average utilitarianism are incorrect, at least without strong modifications.
(Personally I think a sufficiently developed version of person-affecting utilitarianism (an alternative to average and total utilitarianism) might well solve all these problems, though the issue is very difficult. See e.g. here.)
The comment you made a little later looks like your answer to that question.