For any population of people of happiness h, you can add more people of happiness less than h, and still improve things.
I think that this property, at least the way you are interpreting it, does not fully represent the intuition that leads to the repugnant conclusion. A stronger version would be: For any population of people, you want add more people with positive happiness (keeping the happiness of the already existing people constant), and still improve things.
I don’t think your unintuitive aggregation formula would be compatible with that.
I think that this property, at least the way you are interpreting it, does not fully represent the intuition that leads to the repugnant conclusion. A stronger version would be: For any population of people, you want add more people with positive happiness (keeping the happiness of the already existing people constant), and still improve things.
I don’t think your unintuitive aggregation formula would be compatible with that.
I agree. That’s why I didn’t present my aggregation formula as a counterexample to the mere addition paradox, but merely being connected to it.