Derek Parfit: The Repugnant Conclusion

Five introductory points on Parfit's Repugnant Conclusion and Mere Addition Paradox. Relevant to an applied ethics discussion of overpopulation.

Citation details
Derek Parfit, 1984, Reasons and Persons, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Derek Parfit, 1986, “Overpopulation and the Quality of Life.”, in P. Singer, ed., Applied Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145–164

Derek Parfit 2016, “Can We Avoid the Repugnant Conclusion? ”, Theoria, 82 (2): 110–27

[keyfeatures]

If you focus on the removal of suffering rather than total of happiness, A is better. Obviously.

[MrPellenisse]

This whole thing is just a logical fallacy. There are mainly 2 mistakes being made here.

1. The definition of "better" is not consistent through out the reasoning. At first we assume "happiness=better", but later on the definition switches to "egalitarian=better". These obviously give very different results so I don't understand how anyone could make such an obvious mistake.

2. When removing a key factor that leads to a specific result, you can't keep assuming the result is still the same. Saying that B- and B is the same is simply a false statement. This seems to be coming from the misconception that "math=logic" which is not true. In math you can state that:
2 + 6 = 8 is the same as 8 = 6 + 2.
In logic however you can not! Consider the folowing :
"Rain = Wet ground", but saying "Wet ground = Rain" is uncertain. The ground can be wet for various reasons other than rain. The rules of logic is stricter than the rules of math. If you apply only the rules of math (as is done in this philosophical reasoning) in a logic scenario you can get wrong results. You can however always apply the rules of logic on math.