What should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion?
The Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation, For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose exi...
| मुख्य लेखकों: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| स्वरूप: | Journal article |
| भाषा: | English |
| प्रकाशित: |
Cambridge University Press
2021
|
| _version_ | 1826296345754861568 |
|---|---|
| author | Zuber, S Venkatesh, N Tännsjö, T Tarsney, C Stefánsson, HO Steele, K Spears, D Sebo, J Pivato, M Ord, T Ng, YK Masny, M Macaskill, W Lawson, N Kuruc, K Hutchinson, M Gustafsson, JE Greaves, H Forsberg, L Fleurbaey, M Coffey, D Cato, S Castro, C Campbell, T Budolfson, M Broome, J Berger, A Beckstead, N Asheim, GB |
| author_facet | Zuber, S Venkatesh, N Tännsjö, T Tarsney, C Stefánsson, HO Steele, K Spears, D Sebo, J Pivato, M Ord, T Ng, YK Masny, M Macaskill, W Lawson, N Kuruc, K Hutchinson, M Gustafsson, JE Greaves, H Forsberg, L Fleurbaey, M Coffey, D Cato, S Castro, C Campbell, T Budolfson, M Broome, J Berger, A Beckstead, N Asheim, GB |
| author_sort | Zuber, S |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | The Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation, For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though its members have lives that are barely worth living. (Parfit 1984: 388) |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:14:55Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:c91a2c49-1f65-4067-be9b-a4f72548d2f2 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:14:55Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:c91a2c49-1f65-4067-be9b-a4f72548d2f22022-03-27T06:56:48ZWhat should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:c91a2c49-1f65-4067-be9b-a4f72548d2f2EnglishSymplectic Elements Cambridge University Press 2021Zuber, SVenkatesh, NTännsjö, TTarsney, CStefánsson, HOSteele, KSpears, DSebo, JPivato, MOrd, TNg, YKMasny, MMacaskill, WLawson, NKuruc, KHutchinson, MGustafsson, JEGreaves, HForsberg, LFleurbaey, MCoffey, DCato, SCastro, CCampbell, TBudolfson, MBroome, JBerger, ABeckstead, NAsheim, GBThe Repugnant Conclusion is an implication of some approaches to population ethics. It states, in Derek Parfit's original formulation, For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though its members have lives that are barely worth living. (Parfit 1984: 388) |
| spellingShingle | Zuber, S Venkatesh, N Tännsjö, T Tarsney, C Stefánsson, HO Steele, K Spears, D Sebo, J Pivato, M Ord, T Ng, YK Masny, M Macaskill, W Lawson, N Kuruc, K Hutchinson, M Gustafsson, JE Greaves, H Forsberg, L Fleurbaey, M Coffey, D Cato, S Castro, C Campbell, T Budolfson, M Broome, J Berger, A Beckstead, N Asheim, GB What should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? |
| title | What should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? |
| title_full | What should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? |
| title_fullStr | What should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? |
| title_full_unstemmed | What should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? |
| title_short | What should we agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion? |
| title_sort | what should we agree on about the repugnant conclusion |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zubers whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT venkateshn whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT tannsjot whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT tarsneyc whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT stefanssonho whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT steelek whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT spearsd whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT seboj whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT pivatom whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT ordt whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT ngyk whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT masnym whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT macaskillw whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT lawsonn whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT kuruck whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT hutchinsonm whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT gustafssonje whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT greavesh whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT forsbergl whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT fleurbaeym whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT coffeyd whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT catos whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT castroc whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT campbellt whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT budolfsonm whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT broomej whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT bergera whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT becksteadn whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion AT asheimgb whatshouldweagreeonabouttherepugnantconclusion |