As far as I can tell, it is easy to understand why the Repugnant Conclusion is repugnant. It explores scope neglect, a very well-known cognitive bias, to a great extent.
I agree that scope neglect probably explains a bit here, but I donât think thatâs all. For instance, nobody would deny that 2 people living in bliss is a worse state than 1bi in nirvana. And even population ethicists feel uncomfortable with RC.
Besides my mentioning of uncertainty above, I also guess (very tentatively) that some other factors might mess up with our intuitions:
i) scarcity concerns: we evolved under resource scarcity, which biases us towards lower populations;
ii) social norms might bias us against RC;
iii) contractualist reasoning: if you were in something like an Original Position and had to choose which world you would prefer to live in, youâd pick the âlow pop living in blissâ world, of course (from a selfish POV, at least). Similarly, we might say that living in a country with a high avg HDI (e.g., Sweden) is better than another one with lower avg HDI (e.g., Nigeria) - because avg HDI here is a good predictor for how good is the life of an individual living in that country. But I guess this just shows contractualist reasoning is unsuited for population ethics: we are interested in how good a place is all things considered, and not in âhow good is this place for those who live hereâ.
P.S.: Something that puzzles me is that RC seems to be analogous to the problem of fanaticism in Pascalian scenariosâand yet I donât see this analogy being widely explored.
Nobody would deny that 2 people living in bliss is a worse state than 1bi in nirvana
Adepts of total hedonic utilitarians (e.g. me) would support this, as long as bliss is sufficiently better than nirvana. I it easy to see (if not feel) that 10^9 is much larger than 2, but âblissâ and ânirvanaâ look similar because they are somewhat vague.
Besides my mentioning of uncertainty above, I also guess (very tentatively) that some other factors might mess up with our intuitions
I agree the factors you mention also explain why the RC is often seen as repugnant. That being said, would you say they are evidence against the total view?
Something that puzzles me is that RC seems to be analogous to the problem of fanaticism in Pascalian scenariosâand yet I donât see this analogy being widely explored.
I think it is a little bit different. If someone asks me for 100 T$ (similar to global GDP) in return for 1 $, I am happy with rejecting the offer because the variance of my prior is much lower than that of the offer. In the RC, which is just a tought experiment, I think we are supposed to consider that both scenarios (e.g. 2 people in bliss, and 1 G in nirvana) are certain (i.e. have null variance), so bayesian considerations should arguably not play a role.
Thanks for this reply, meu caro. My remarks: 1. Though âblissâ and (tranquil) ânirvanaâ are vague, and some people might equate them, in the text being discussed they are made a bit more precisified⌠But I guess we both agree that it is still far away from making them precise termsâespecially because we are not very good at measuring welfare. I consider this as evidence that uncertainty plays a role in our ârepugnantâ intuitions.
2. Allow me to be brief and tentative: I donât consider my remarks as evidence against the total view. I suspect the total view is the right theory of value /â good (though I distinguish this from a theory of justice /â dutyâwhich is another way of answering âwhat should we do?â). I think that RC reasoning is probably correctâbut it is hard to apply in uncertain comparison, or might be quite trivial (and so not very ârepugnantâ) in certain ones.
3. I agree that RC reasoning does not involve uncertainty /â risk /â probabilities. But I find the premises and its steps quite reminiscent of some âlow probabilityâhigh expectancyâ casesâso that I suspect the formal arguments are related (besides the fact that both conclusions seem to be entailed by expected utility theory). When I do have the time to engage with the literature, Iâll start with Nebelâs Intrapersonal Addition Paradox, and Kosonenâs solution.
Interesting post, thanks!
As far as I can tell, it is easy to understand why the Repugnant Conclusion is repugnant. It explores scope neglect, a very well-known cognitive bias, to a great extent.
I agree that scope neglect probably explains a bit here, but I donât think thatâs all. For instance, nobody would deny that 2 people living in bliss is a worse state than 1bi in nirvana. And even population ethicists feel uncomfortable with RC.
Besides my mentioning of uncertainty above, I also guess (very tentatively) that some other factors might mess up with our intuitions:
i) scarcity concerns: we evolved under resource scarcity, which biases us towards lower populations;
ii) social norms might bias us against RC;
iii) contractualist reasoning: if you were in something like an Original Position and had to choose which world you would prefer to live in, youâd pick the âlow pop living in blissâ world, of course (from a selfish POV, at least). Similarly, we might say that living in a country with a high avg HDI (e.g., Sweden) is better than another one with lower avg HDI (e.g., Nigeria) - because avg HDI here is a good predictor for how good is the life of an individual living in that country. But I guess this just shows contractualist reasoning is unsuited for population ethics: we are interested in how good a place is all things considered, and not in âhow good is this place for those who live hereâ.
P.S.: Something that puzzles me is that RC seems to be analogous to the problem of fanaticism in Pascalian scenariosâand yet I donât see this analogy being widely explored.
Adepts of total hedonic utilitarians (e.g. me) would support this, as long as bliss is sufficiently better than nirvana. I it easy to see (if not feel) that 10^9 is much larger than 2, but âblissâ and ânirvanaâ look similar because they are somewhat vague.
I agree the factors you mention also explain why the RC is often seen as repugnant. That being said, would you say they are evidence against the total view?
I think it is a little bit different. If someone asks me for 100 T$ (similar to global GDP) in return for 1 $, I am happy with rejecting the offer because the variance of my prior is much lower than that of the offer. In the RC, which is just a tought experiment, I think we are supposed to consider that both scenarios (e.g. 2 people in bliss, and 1 G in nirvana) are certain (i.e. have null variance), so bayesian considerations should arguably not play a role.
Thanks for this reply, meu caro. My remarks:
1. Though âblissâ and (tranquil) ânirvanaâ are vague, and some people might equate them, in the text being discussed they are made a bit more precisified⌠But I guess we both agree that it is still far away from making them precise termsâespecially because we are not very good at measuring welfare. I consider this as evidence that uncertainty plays a role in our ârepugnantâ intuitions.
2. Allow me to be brief and tentative: I donât consider my remarks as evidence against the total view. I suspect the total view is the right theory of value /â good (though I distinguish this from a theory of justice /â dutyâwhich is another way of answering âwhat should we do?â). I think that RC reasoning is probably correctâbut it is hard to apply in uncertain comparison, or might be quite trivial (and so not very ârepugnantâ) in certain ones.
3. I agree that RC reasoning does not involve uncertainty /â risk /â probabilities. But I find the premises and its steps quite reminiscent of some âlow probabilityâhigh expectancyâ casesâso that I suspect the formal arguments are related (besides the fact that both conclusions seem to be entailed by expected utility theory). When I do have the time to engage with the literature, Iâll start with Nebelâs Intrapersonal Addition Paradox, and Kosonenâs solution.
Thanks for clarifying!