Absurd Utilitarianism
https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-1-85-89
EDN: REEWIV
Abstract
The essay contains a radical critique of the total act utilitarianism. The consistent implementation principle of aggregate utility maximization suggests that the best world what we can create (with a given amount of resource R) would be a world with countless rat brains in vats converted into solid pleasure centers.
References
1. Parfit D. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 560 p. (In Engl.).
2. Anglin B. The Repugnant Conclusion // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1977. Vol. 7, no. 4. P. 745–754. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1977.10716193. (In Engl.).
3. Hurka T. M. Average Utilitarianisms // Analysis. 1982. Vol. 42, no. 2. P. 65–69. DOI: 10.1093/analys/42.2.65. (In Engl.).
4. Parfit D. Overpopulation and the Quality of Life // Applied Ethics / Ed. P. Singer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 145– 164. (In Engl.).
5. Dasgupta P., Seabright P. Population Size and the Quality of Life // Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume. 1989. Vol. 63, no. 1. P. 23–54. DOI: 10.1093/aristoteliansupp/63.1.23. (In Engl.).
6. Sider T. Might Theory X Be a Theory of Diminishing Marginal Value? // Analysis. 1991. Vol. 51, no. 4. P. 265–271. DOI: 10.1093/analys/51.4.265. (In Engl.).
7. Crisp R. Utilitarianism and the Life of Virtue // The Philosophical Quarterly. 1992. Vol. 42, no. 167. P. 139–160. DOI: 10.2307/2220212. (In Engl.).
8. Feldman F. Justice, Desert, and the Repugnant Conclusion // Utilitas. 1995. Vol. 7, no. 2. P. 189–206. DOI: 10.1017/S095382080000203X. (In Engl.).
9. Ryberg J. Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion // The Philosophical Quarterly. 1996. Vol. 46, no. 183. P. 202–213. DOI: 10.2307/2956387. (In Engl.).
10. Fotion N. Repugnant Thoughts about the Repugnant Conclusion Argument // Contingent Future Persons: On the Ethics of Deciding Who Will Live, or Not, in the Future / Eds. N. Fotion, J. C. Heller. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media, 1997. P. 85–97. (In Engl.).
11. Carlson Е. Mere Addition and Two Trilemmas of Population Ethics // Economics and Philosophy. 1998. Vol. 14, no. 2. P. 283–306. DOI: 10.1017/S0266267100003862. (In Engl.).
12. Arrhenius G. An Impossibility Theorem for Welfarist Axiologies // Economics and Philosophy. 2000. Vol. 16, no. 2. P. 247–266. DOI: 10.1017/S0266267100000249. (In Engl.).
13. Tännsjö T. Why We Ought to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion // Utilitas. 2002. Vol. 14, no. 3. P. 339–359. DOI: 10.1017/S0953820800003642. (In Engl.).
14. Mulgan T. The Reverse Repugnant Conclusion // Utilitas. 2002. Vol. 14, no. 3. P. 360–364. DOI: 10.1017/S0953820800003654. (In Engl.).
15. The Repugnant Conclusion / Eds. J. Ryberg, T. Tännsjö. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004. 260 p. (In Engl.).
16. Broome J. Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 278 p. (In Engl.).
17. Huemer M. In Defence of Repugnance // Mind. 2008. Vol. 117, no. 468. P. 899–933. DOI: 10.1093/mind/fzn079. (In Engl.).
18. Masny M. On Parfit’s Wide Dual Person-Affecting Principle// The Philosophical Quarterly. 2020. Vol. 70, no. 278. P. 114–139. DOI: 10.1093/pq/pqz049. (In Engl.).
19. Beard S. Perfectionism and the Repugnant Conclusion // The Journal of Value Inquiry. 2020. Vol. 54, no. 1. P. 119–140. DOI: 10.1007/s10790-019-09687-4. (In Engl.).
20. Jensen K. K. Weak Superiority, Imprecise Equality and the Repugnant Conclusion // Utilitas. 2020. Vol. 32, no. 3. P. 294–315. DOI: 10.1017/S0953820819000517. (In Engl.).
21. Spears D., Budolfson M. Repugnant Conclusions // Social Choice and Welfare. 2021. Vol. 57, no. 3. P. 567–588. DOI: 10.1007/s00355-021-01321-2. (In Engl.).
22. Zuber S., Venkatesh N., Tännsjö T. [et al.] What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? // Utilitas. 2021. Vol. 33, no. 4. P. 379–383. DOI: 10.1017/S095382082100011X. (In Engl.).
Review
For citations:
McGinn С. Absurd Utilitarianism. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity. 2024;9(1):85-89. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-1-85-89. EDN: REEWIV
JATS XML



















