I thought the Mere Addition Paradox and the Repugnant Conclusion were the same thing?
Either way, I do think itโs useful to distinguish two versions as you have, since the main reason I find the RC counterintuitive is already explained by my intuitions about the Mere Addition Paradox, and the RC brings in additional considerations about number vs average value, which are irrelevant to me.
Yeah, I guess some people use the names interchangeably. I agree that it can be useful to look at them separately, which was done in Fehige (1998). Their difference is also described in the following way (on Wikipedia):
[Parfit] claims that on the face of it, it may not be absurd to think that B is better than A. Suppose, then, that B is in fact better than A โฆ . It follows that this revised intuition must hold in subsequent iterations of the original steps. For example, the next iteration would add even more people to B+, and then take the average of the total happiness, resulting in C-. If these steps are repeated over and over, the eventual result will be Z, a massive population with the minimum level of average happiness; this would be a population in which every member is leading a life barely worth living. Parfit claims that it is Z that is the repugnant conclusion.
I thought the Mere Addition Paradox and the Repugnant Conclusion were the same thing?
Either way, I do think itโs useful to distinguish two versions as you have, since the main reason I find the RC counterintuitive is already explained by my intuitions about the Mere Addition Paradox, and the RC brings in additional considerations about number vs average value, which are irrelevant to me.
Yeah, I guess some people use the names interchangeably. I agree that it can be useful to look at them separately, which was done in Fehige (1998). Their difference is also described in the following way (on Wikipedia):