My favourite response to the repugnant conclusion is David Benatar’s asymmetry argument. The idea that the absence of suffering in potential beings is good even when there’s no one to enjoy that good, whereas the absence of pleasure isn’t bad unless there’s someone who’s deprived of it. So adding more sentient beings whose lives contain any suffering isn’t an improvement—so the repugnant conclusion never gets off the ground. It’s the same intuition behind why it isn’t a tragedy that Mars has no sentient life.
This implies planning to have children is immoral. You get morally penalized for the suffering of your future children, but are not morally rewarded for their joy.
Thanks Alfredo, I enjoyed this post.
My favourite response to the repugnant conclusion is David Benatar’s asymmetry argument. The idea that the absence of suffering in potential beings is good even when there’s no one to enjoy that good, whereas the absence of pleasure isn’t bad unless there’s someone who’s deprived of it. So adding more sentient beings whose lives contain any suffering isn’t an improvement—so the repugnant conclusion never gets off the ground. It’s the same intuition behind why it isn’t a tragedy that Mars has no sentient life.
This implies planning to have children is immoral. You get morally penalized for the suffering of your future children, but are not morally rewarded for their joy.
This seems like a large bullet to bite.