I believe that the proposed function does not follow the rule that adding positive value members is positive value.
Right- the point is that the original repugnant conclusion is avoided if you replace “adding any number of people with positive happiness leads to a superior aggregation” with “there is some number of people with below-average utility who can be added which leads to a superior aggregation.”
I don’t think it’s necessary to butcher your utility function calculations that way. Adding someone with a positive-value life is a good thing (else it would not be positive value).
Right- the point is that the original repugnant conclusion is avoided if you replace “adding any number of people with positive happiness leads to a superior aggregation” with “there is some number of people with below-average utility who can be added which leads to a superior aggregation.”
I don’t think it’s necessary to butcher your utility function calculations that way. Adding someone with a positive-value life is a good thing (else it would not be positive value).