RSS

Per­son-af­fect­ing views

TagLast edit: 13 Jul 2022 22:55 UTC by Pablo

In population ethics, person-affecting views are views that attempt to capture the intuition that an outcome can be bad only if it is bad for people. (By ‘people’ it is meant a moral patient rather than a human being.) Derek Parfit distinguishes between narrow person-affecting views, which hold that an outcome can be bad only if it is bad for the people who exist in this outcome, and wide person-affecting views, which allow that an outcome can be bad if some different attainable outcome would have benefited people in it more.

Further reading

Parfit, Derek (1984) Reasons and Persons, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 393–401.

Thomas, Teruji (2019) The asymmetry, uncertainty, and the long term, Global Priorities Institute, section 2.3.

Related entries

ethics of existential risk | intuition of neutrality | population ethics | total view

Teruji Thomas, ‘The Asym­me­try, Uncer­tainty, and the Long Term’

Pablo5 Nov 2019 20:24 UTC
43 points
6 comments1 min readEA link
(globalprioritiesinstitute.org)

Against neu­tral­ity about cre­at­ing happy lives

Joe_Carlsmith15 Mar 2021 1:54 UTC
95 points
37 comments11 min readEA link

Con­fused about “mak­ing peo­ple happy” vs. “mak­ing happy peo­ple”

tobiasleenaert16 Jul 2022 15:07 UTC
67 points
47 comments1 min readEA link

Cri­tique of MacAskill’s “Is It Good to Make Happy Peo­ple?”

Magnus Vinding23 Aug 2022 9:21 UTC
219 points
115 comments8 min readEA link

“Long-Ter­mism” vs. “Ex­is­ten­tial Risk”

Scott Alexander6 Apr 2022 21:41 UTC
513 points
81 comments3 min readEA link

The per­son-af­fect­ing value of ex­is­ten­tial risk reduction

Gregory Lewis13 Apr 2018 1:44 UTC
64 points
33 comments4 min readEA link

Puz­zles for Everyone

Richard Y Chappell10 Sep 2022 2:11 UTC
116 points
38 comments5 min readEA link
(rychappell.substack.com)

Defend­ing the Pro­cre­ation Asym­me­try with Con­di­tional Interests

MichaelStJules13 Oct 2019 18:49 UTC
34 points
13 comments8 min readEA link

The prob­lem of pos­si­ble pop­u­la­tions: an­i­mal farm­ing, sus­tain­abil­ity, ex­tinc­tion and the re­pug­nant conclusion

Stijn6 Jul 2021 13:17 UTC
7 points
9 comments16 min readEA link

The prob­lem with per­son-af­fect­ing views

JackM5 Aug 2020 18:37 UTC
44 points
22 comments3 min readEA link

Repug­nance and replacement

MichaelStJules11 Apr 2024 2:40 UTC
14 points
28 comments9 min readEA link

The asym­me­try and the far future

John G. Halstead9 Mar 2017 22:05 UTC
11 points
14 comments6 min readEA link

Per­son-af­fect­ing in­tu­itions can of­ten be money pumped

Rohin Shah7 Jul 2022 12:23 UTC
92 points
69 comments3 min readEA link

How to ne­glect the long term (Hay­den Wilk­in­son)

Global Priorities Institute13 Oct 2023 11:09 UTC
21 points
0 comments5 min readEA link
(globalprioritiesinstitute.org)

A non-iden­tity dilemma for per­son-af­fect­ing views (Elliott Thorn­ley)

Global Priorities Institute4 Apr 2024 16:30 UTC
8 points
3 comments3 min readEA link
(globalprioritiesinstitute.org)

My favourite ar­gu­ments against per­son-af­fect­ing views

EJT2 Apr 2024 10:57 UTC
76 points
32 comments17 min readEA link

Con­di­tional in­ter­ests, asym­me­tries and EA priorities

MichaelStJules21 Oct 2019 6:13 UTC
22 points
23 comments14 min readEA link

Jane English on Rawls and du­ties to fu­ture generations

William D'Alessandro6 Nov 2022 14:25 UTC
12 points
3 comments6 min readEA link

Marginal ex­is­tence and its rele­vance to pro-na­tal­ism, longter­mism, and the re­pug­nant conclusion

dawsoneliasen23 Jan 2023 3:24 UTC
4 points
2 comments8 min readEA link

The Non-Iden­tity Prob­lem ex­plained col­lo­quially

Alex Vellins27 Dec 2022 7:22 UTC
2 points
0 comments2 min readEA link

Com­mon-sense cases where “hy­po­thet­i­cal fu­ture peo­ple” matter

tlevin12 Aug 2022 14:05 UTC
107 points
21 comments4 min readEA link

The stan­dard per­son-af­fect­ing view doesn’t solve the Repug­nant Con­clu­sion.

RedStateBlueState23 Aug 2022 19:58 UTC
21 points
6 comments1 min readEA link