1/n I’m confused by Derek Parfit’s ‘Repugnant Conclusion’. Can anyone help me understand the right way to think about this?
-
-
Comparing the two hypothetical states can help to confirm or refute his broader theory. The theory says many more people each with lives barely worth living is better than small numbers with bliss. If we don’t feel that way, then there may be something wrong with the theory.
-
So if you buy that, it doesn’t matter that one or both are in an inaccessible part of state space. The point is just to evaluate his philosophy. Parfit bites the bullet, but most people’s intuition is that smaller numbers with bliss is better.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
There's a bunch of assumptions that lead to the supposed repugnant conclusion. If, like me, the conclusion doesn't make sense to you, you probably find that at least one of the assumptions doesn't hold. They're outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
You aren't wrong. It's a thought experiment that proves neither average happiness nor total happiness is the ideal metric for the success of a society.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
You are voicing the same confusion I had, so I am happy to tag this thread.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
1. Philosophical "illogic": Perhaps too academic to provide direct utility but the goal of defining and exploring fiat boundaries is to help answer pragmatic questions if we approach the bounds, e.g. Parfit forces question of measurement of aggregate welfare (like yours!)
-
2. Steel-manning Parfit: Detractors have trouble with large numbers, i.e. considering a random sample from a hypothetical population 10X in size size, our lived experiences limit envisioning their happiness level (defaulting to it being not worth living by comp v. ~Gaussian).
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
It’s an attempt to graft a single systematic criterion (either avg or total welfare) onto all imaginable cases. The idea is that, if true, the criterion should apply even in pragmatically unimaginable cases. If not, no basis to claim the criterion applies even in mundane cases.
-
An alternative standard might be “if true, the criterion should apply in all *pragmatically imaginable cases*, but this puts pressure on the idea that ethics can be fully systematized. And if it can’t be, is it real? This is what’s repugnant.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Repugnant conclusion is an if-then statement in the style of a mathematical proof by contradiction. If you don't like the conclusion you have to say which of the assumptions you dispute. For me that's easy, I dispute the assumption that adding people of low QoL is good.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.