Adding resources to this thought experiment is just adding noise. If something other than life quality values matters in this model, then the model is bad.
A>B is correct in average utilitarianism and incorrect in total utilitarianism. The way to resolve this is to send average utilitarianism into the trash can, because it fails in so many desidarata.
I’m not adding resources—they are inherent to the thought experiment, so all I’ve done is draw attention to their presence and their crucial role which should not be neglected. If you run this past a competent mathematician, they will confirm exactly what I’ve said (and be aware that this applies directly to total utilitarianism).
Think very carefully about why the population A’ should have a lower level of happiness than A if this thought experiment is resources-independent. How would that work? Why would the quality of life for individuals fall as the population goes up and up infinitely if there’s no dependence on resources?
If you don’t have access to a suitable mathematician, I have access to some of the best ones via Hugh Porteous, so I could bring one in if necessary. It would be better though if you could find your own (so avoid any connected with Sheffield and the Open University, and you’d better avoid Liverpool and Cambridge too, because they could be accused of being biased in my favour as well).
Adding resources to this thought experiment is just adding noise. If something other than life quality values matters in this model, then the model is bad.
A>B is correct in average utilitarianism and incorrect in total utilitarianism. The way to resolve this is to send average utilitarianism into the trash can, because it fails in so many desidarata.
I’m not adding resources—they are inherent to the thought experiment, so all I’ve done is draw attention to their presence and their crucial role which should not be neglected. If you run this past a competent mathematician, they will confirm exactly what I’ve said (and be aware that this applies directly to total utilitarianism).
Think very carefully about why the population A’ should have a lower level of happiness than A if this thought experiment is resources-independent. How would that work? Why would the quality of life for individuals fall as the population goes up and up infinitely if there’s no dependence on resources?
If you don’t have access to a suitable mathematician, I have access to some of the best ones via Hugh Porteous, so I could bring one in if necessary. It would be better though if you could find your own (so avoid any connected with Sheffield and the Open University, and you’d better avoid Liverpool and Cambridge too, because they could be accused of being biased in my favour as well).