Mere addition and the separateness of persons

How can we resist the repugnant conclusion? James Griffin has suggested that part way through the sequence we may reach a world—let us call it “J”— in which the lives are lexically superior to those that follow. If it would be better to live a single life in J than through any number of lives in the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Rendall, Matthew
Format: Article
Published: Journal of Philosophy 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28446/
_version_ 1848793572373954560
author Rendall, Matthew
author_facet Rendall, Matthew
author_sort Rendall, Matthew
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description How can we resist the repugnant conclusion? James Griffin has suggested that part way through the sequence we may reach a world—let us call it “J”— in which the lives are lexically superior to those that follow. If it would be better to live a single life in J than through any number of lives in the next one (“K”), we may judge the smaller world preferable, as if aggregating the lives in the larger world intrapersonally. I argue that the mere addition paradox arises because adding new people with separate preferences renders such lexical rankings untenable. Whereas in comparing J and K we could legitimately infer that the former was lexically preferable, we cannot “suspend addition” when comparing J+ and K. Instead, for half of these worlds’ populations, it will be preferable to move to K. When one ranking suspends addition and the other does not, the result is an intransitive value judgement: J < J+ < K < J, producing the mere addition paradox.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T19:02:26Z
format Article
id nottingham-28446
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T19:02:26Z
publishDate 2015
publisher Journal of Philosophy
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-284462020-05-04T17:11:58Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28446/ Mere addition and the separateness of persons Rendall, Matthew How can we resist the repugnant conclusion? James Griffin has suggested that part way through the sequence we may reach a world—let us call it “J”— in which the lives are lexically superior to those that follow. If it would be better to live a single life in J than through any number of lives in the next one (“K”), we may judge the smaller world preferable, as if aggregating the lives in the larger world intrapersonally. I argue that the mere addition paradox arises because adding new people with separate preferences renders such lexical rankings untenable. Whereas in comparing J and K we could legitimately infer that the former was lexically preferable, we cannot “suspend addition” when comparing J+ and K. Instead, for half of these worlds’ populations, it will be preferable to move to K. When one ranking suspends addition and the other does not, the result is an intransitive value judgement: J < J+ < K < J, producing the mere addition paradox. Journal of Philosophy 2015-08-01 Article PeerReviewed Rendall, Matthew (2015) Mere addition and the separateness of persons. Journal of Philosophy, 112 (8). pp. 442-455. ISSN 1939-8549 (In Press) Mere addition paradox; repugnant conclusion; Population ethics; Utilitarianism; Aggregation; Intransitivity https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=jphil&id=jphil_2015_0112_0008_0442_0455 doi:10.5840/jphil2015112827 doi:10.5840/jphil2015112827
spellingShingle Mere addition paradox; repugnant conclusion; Population ethics; Utilitarianism; Aggregation; Intransitivity
Rendall, Matthew
Mere addition and the separateness of persons
title Mere addition and the separateness of persons
title_full Mere addition and the separateness of persons
title_fullStr Mere addition and the separateness of persons
title_full_unstemmed Mere addition and the separateness of persons
title_short Mere addition and the separateness of persons
title_sort mere addition and the separateness of persons
topic Mere addition paradox; repugnant conclusion; Population ethics; Utilitarianism; Aggregation; Intransitivity
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28446/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28446/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28446/