Your objection against NAE is also raised by MichaelStJules in this post, which I have responded to. I completely accept NAE.
Rejecting transitivity is vulnerable to money pump arguments. So I completely accept transitivity.
I would reject mere addition. Mere addition implies that it would be moral to create someone if they experienced a year of extreme torture followed by just enough happiness to ‘outweigh’ the torture.
I fully accept all the 3 premises of the Repugnant Conclusion, and also mere addition in principle. However, in practice, I would oppose bringing a human to life knowing he/she would endure significant torture afterwards, because I expect this would lead to a bad life if even the parents thought it was neet good (e.g. due to religious motives).
Your objection against NAE is also raised by MichaelStJules in this post, which I have responded to. I completely accept NAE.
Rejecting transitivity is vulnerable to money pump arguments. So I completely accept transitivity.
I would reject mere addition. Mere addition implies that it would be moral to create someone if they experienced a year of extreme torture followed by just enough happiness to ‘outweigh’ the torture.
Welcome to the EA Forum!
I fully accept all the 3 premises of the Repugnant Conclusion, and also mere addition in principle. However, in practice, I would oppose bringing a human to life knowing he/she would endure significant torture afterwards, because I expect this would lead to a bad life if even the parents thought it was neet good (e.g. due to religious motives).