Just a guess, but I think many people who reject the repugnant conclusion in its original form would be happy to save far more people with less good but positive lives, over less people with better lives. Recall the recent piece on bioethicists where lots of them donât even think you have more reason to save the life of a 20-year old than a 70-year old. Or consider how offensive it is to say âletâs save the lives of people in rich countries, all things being equal, because their lives will likely contain less sufferingâ. In general, people seem to reject the idea that the size of the benefit conveyed on someone by saving their life affects how strong the reason to save their life is, so long as their remaining life will be net positive and something like a ânormalâ human life, and isnât ludicrously short. (Note: Iâm not defending this position, I think you should obviously save a 20-year old over a 70-year old because the benefit to them is so much larger.)
On the other hand, most of these people would probably save a few humans over many more animals, which is kind of like rejecting the repugnant conclusion in a life-saving rather than life-creating context.
Just a guess, but I think many people who reject the repugnant conclusion in its original form would be happy to save far more people with less good but positive lives, over less people with better lives. Recall the recent piece on bioethicists where lots of them donât even think you have more reason to save the life of a 20-year old than a 70-year old. Or consider how offensive it is to say âletâs save the lives of people in rich countries, all things being equal, because their lives will likely contain less sufferingâ. In general, people seem to reject the idea that the size of the benefit conveyed on someone by saving their life affects how strong the reason to save their life is, so long as their remaining life will be net positive and something like a ânormalâ human life, and isnât ludicrously short. (Note: Iâm not defending this position, I think you should obviously save a 20-year old over a 70-year old because the benefit to them is so much larger.)
On the other hand, most of these people would probably save a few humans over many more animals, which is kind of like rejecting the repugnant conclusion in a life-saving rather than life-creating context.