Definition
The Repugnant Conclusion is a logical implication of the Total View of population ethics: for any very large population of people with a very high quality of life (bliss), there is a much larger population of people with lives that are only barely worth living (Muzak and potatoes) which is morally better because it contains more total wellbeing.
Why It Matters
This paradox forces us to confront the ‘Scale Problem’ in morality. If we don’t resolve it, our long-term policies might accidentally prioritize an ‘Enormous and Drab’ future over a ‘Big and Flourishing’ one. It is the ultimate test for any ethics-based governance system.
Core Concepts
-
The Impossibility Theorem: The conclusion follows from three seemingly indisputable premises:
- Dominance Addition: Making everyone better off while adding happy people is good.
- Non-Anti-Egalitarianism: Equality is not bad; a more equal population with higher total/average wellbeing is better.
- Transitivity: If and , then .
-
How to read: “The condition if A is better than B and B is better than C, then A is better than C.”
- Meaning: Moral ranking must be consistent—if you prefer A to B and B to C, you must prefer A to C. Rejecting the repugnant conclusion forces rejecting one of these premises.
-
The Paradox: While the conclusion feels “repugnant” to many, rejecting it requires rejecting one of the three foundational premises above, each of which is extremely difficult to give up.
-
Theoretical Responses:
- Acceptance: Some philosophers (including MacAskill) argue the conclusion is not as bad as it seems when considering the vastness of the Z-population.
- Critical Level View: Adding lives only counts as good if they are above a certain threshold, but this leads to the Sadistic Conclusion.
- Average View: Prioritizing the mean, but this leads to “Hell Three” scenarios where adding suffering can be “good” if it raises the average.