The Repugnant Conclusion (a philosophy paradox)

This is an important paradox in moral philosophy, first introduced by Derek Parfit. To learn more, check out:
1. Parfit's "Reasons and Persons," part 4
2. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the paradox:

[lukealchinsmith]

I blurted out loud "Worse!" when that second world was proposed just to hear Julia say obviously its not worse a few seconds later... I don't see this as a paradox as I disagree with its assumptions.

How it is not worse? The overall amount of suck being experienced has gone up. way up. That's worse! Its hard for me to believe its the same or better.

[grumpdogg]

"Dude I think I just solved Utilitarianism!" is such a good pickup line

[madsras]

It seems to me that you are assuming that more people is better in and of itself. I don't see why you would conclude that. Why is it better to have 1bil extra people that aren't as happy as you show in ex B and C? What is it about having a greater quantity that is "better"?

[drmdjones]

I object to the premise that having more people, regardless of their happiness, is better than having fewer people.

[Blackmark]

I take objection to every single "common sense" principle at 4:00
1. ignores the decline in resources as the population increases
2. can't be sustained without assuming nothing is wrong with premise 1 and total happiness cannot be increased by the average unless it's below average
3. any number of very happy people is preferable to the same amount of unhappy people and adding unhappy people always lowers happiness.

[iamnotafunnyguy]

As a philosopher I am quite suspicious of very happy people.

[measureofdoubt]

To address some common points in the comments so far:
1. Some people said, "But aren't unhappy people *negative* value?" 
No, most people who have unhappy lives still prefer existence to non-existence. Most people would have to get very, very unhappy (like in chronic, extreme pain) before they'd think it was better to not exist.
2. Someone pointed out that the move from A->B involves a decrease in average happiness. That's true! One way to resolve the paradox is to say that it's bad to add additional people who are slightly less happy than the average existing person. Most of us find it implausible, though, to say that adding an additional happy person to the world is bad.
3. Some people are just saying the argument is obviously wrong because the conclusion is wrong. That's not how you resolve a paradox, though -- you have to explain what's wrong with the argument.

[HebaruSan]

The "better than" operator is defined differently in each step. In the second step you care about *average* happiness, and in the first step you have to disregard it. If you explicitly state that average happiness counts, then adding less-happy people makes the first step invalid; and if you state that average happiness doesn't matter, then the second step doesn't follow.

[jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait]

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as E is for *Effectiveness* again,
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as F is for *Favouritism* again

[DavidGreen]

I think the biggest assumptions for this paradox is:
1) All forms of happiness/pleausre is good, all forms of suffering is bad
2) all resources needed for "happiness" are finite or zero sum
3) resources that causes happiness/misery are material
4) Happiness or misery should be measured multiplicatively. If two people are suffering, that's twice the suffering than if one person was suffering, and therefore adding more people necessitates multiplying the suffering according the number of people who exist and could be suffering.
5) Due to the multiplication of suffering, the paradox leads to one or two assumptive conclusions: either population control or poverty eradication, where neither can fully inform on the total essence of the human condition.
6) Why would assertion number 3 require a scenario where most people are suffering and a few are happy?

Where I stand, unless those assumptions are properly addressed, the paradox is built on flawed, 1st world-centric logic.

[AirCicilia]

The fallacies in these premises are:
1. the unspoken assumption that a larger population is better than a smaller population,
2. that total happiness is a quantifiable and distrubutable over a given size of population.

[jada]

I immediately took problem with the premise of the first transition. It's even clearer when you do it the 2nd time around. Adding more people who are less happy is worse! Even if they're still somewhat happy.

[anthonynorman]

I reject that existence is a net positive and that happiness can be quantified in the manner purposed. I don't think the transitivity holds.

[shaunheeren]

I find it counterintuitive to think that relative happiness is determined by the size of population.

[jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait]

Same repeatable destructive ideas that resulted from doubting your gameplan
Vs
Same repeatable destructive habits that resulted when I'm alone at the end, and you're just like everyone else around me

[ZoggFromBetelgeuse]

*Short comment*: Define "better".

*Long comment*:
From the persoective of an alien observer, this paradox comes from the fact that the notion of "better" is not a rational value but a partially emotional heuristic, a simplification of a multidimensional vector of sometimes conflicting "values". In this case it unites two distinct "values": The number of specimen (kind regards from the genetic imperative), and the average emotional state of the population. The first one represents the interests of the species as a whole, the second one the interests of the individuals. If you try to combine both values, the conclusion depends on how you combine them. To simplify, the few-happy-earthlings situation is better with "average happyness" metrics, the second one is better with "total happyness" metrics. (If you follow the step-by-step argumentation, you'll see that the total happyness increases with each step). 

Besides this, there is one point that is neglected in this paradox: Time. In other words, the possibility to improve the situation.

1) If we assume that the many-many-unhappy-earthlings situation is necessarily perpetual, then it would be rational to neglect the unhappiness, as unhappyness is an emothion, par of the eartlings' goal-setting mechanism with the purpose of making things better. So, if things can't possibly be made better, then unhappyness, as unpleasant it might be for you earthlings, is utterly irrelevant. In this case, the many-many-unhappy-earthlings situation is indeed better, measured by the genetic imperative, (No, I'm not cynical, I'm only an alien.)  

2) If, on the other side, things are not doomed, if there is a real possibility to make things better, then the unhappyness is not even a bad thing, as it is provides the urge to improve the situation of the population. So, someone like me who has faith in the capacity of earthlingkind to improve their situation might come to the conclusion that the many-many-unhappy-earthlings is "better", as it might lead to a many-many-happy-earthlings situation.

So, in both cases, one might come come to the conclusion that the many-many-unhappy-earthlings situation is actually "better". Which leads to the question whether the "repugnancy" of this solution is actually a rational conclusion by system 2 or rather an emotional reaction - in other words, a heuristic shortcut created by system 1? (As your system 1 is famously bad with big numbers and functions by creating prototypes, my guess is that it evaluates the many-many-unhappy-earthlings situation by imagining a small number of suffering earthlings, which evokes a strong negative emotional response (pity) and leads to the heuristic judgement "That's repugnant", which is then sent to system 2 and initially accepted by most earthlings without questioning. Am I right ?)

[peter-frankspierenburg]

When you go from A to B, how are you justifying "not worse"? Not worse by what measure?

[leftrightandcentre]

Genuine question: A->B is decreasing the average happiness, how is that not worse? I disagree with the premiss that more people (no matter how not-unhappy) = better.

[jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait]

Think more as O is for Opaque
Vs
Think more the hardest way as P is for Portfolio

[jimnesstarlyngdohnonglait]

Think more as C is for Column writing
Vs
Think more as D is for Drawing