DOCSLIB.ORG

Population Axiology Has Been a Source of Inspiration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Population Axiology Has Been a Source of Inspiration FUTURE GENERATIONS A CHALLENGE FOR MORAL THEORY Gustaf Arrhenius Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Practical Philosophy presented at Uppsala University in 2000. ABSTRACT Arrhenius, G. 2000: Future Generations: A Challenge for Moral Theory. viii+234#? pp. Uppsala. For the last thirty years or so, there has been a search underway for a theory that can accommodate our intuitions in regard to moral duties to future generations. The object of this search has proved surprisingly elusive. The classical moral theories in the literature all have perplexing implications in this area. Classical Utilitarianism, for instance, implies that it could be better to expand a population even if everyone in the resulting population would be much worse off than in the original. The main problem has been to find an adequate population theory, that is, a theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives, and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population theory is of general import for moral theory. A number of theories have been proposed in the literature that purport to avoid counter- intuitive implications such as the one mentioned above. The suggestions are diverse: introducing novel ways of aggregating welfare into a measure of value, revising the notion of a life worth living, questioning the way we can compare and measure welfare, counting people’s welfare differently depending on the temporal location or the modal features of their lives, and challenging the logic of axiological and normative concepts. We investigate the concepts and assumptions involved in these theories as well as their implications for population theory. In our discussion, we propose a number of intuitively appealing and logically weak adequacy conditions for an acceptable population theory. Finally, we consider whether it is possible to find a theory that satisfies all of these conditions. We prove that no such theory exists. Keywords: future generations, population theory, population ethics, axiology, welfare, moral theory, social choice theory, impossibility theorems. Gustaf Arrhenius, Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University, Drottningatan 4, S-753 10 Uppsala, Sweden. © Gustaf Arrhenius 2000 Printed in Sweden by Reprocentralen Ekonomikum, Uppsala, 2000. ii For Adeze iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have received a great deal of help from a variety of individuals during the years of work that culminated in this thesis. I’ve been fortunate to have been surrounded by a group of helpful and gifted philosophers, and they have taught me the immense value of co-operation in research. To begin with, my supervisor Sven Danielsson has been very supportive – I don’t think anyone can ask for more from a supervisor. Although his detailed and trenchant criticism sometimes made me despair over the complexity of the subject and my inability to get things right, without his firm advice on how to write, or how not to write, this thesis would have been in much worse condition. I would especially like to mention his invaluable advice on how to conceptualise and structure the problems discussed in this work. My advisor, Wlodek Rabinowicz, has a special place in my career as a philosopher. Many years ago, quite bored with my studies in medicine, I strolled by the Department of Philosophy in Uppsala and decided to sign up for some courses. Wlodek was my first philosophy teacher, and his enthusiasm and inspiring lectures enticed me to leave medicine for philosophy. Later on, he was the supervisor of my Master’s thesis, and his advice and guidance during those years have made an everlasting impression on me. In a remarkably short period of time, Wlodek read the last draft of this essay, and his comments spared me many unnecessary errors. I owe my greatest intellectual debt to my friends and colleagues Krister Bykvist and Erik Carlson. I’ve been in continuous dialogue with them during the last seven years or so about philosophical questions in general, and population theory in particular. They never got tired of my confused questions, crazy proofs, and the countless of drafts of chapters with which I burdened them. They have been a constant source of intellectual challenge and philosophical comraderie. The essential part of this thesis consists of a number of theorems. I wouldn’t have succeeded in producing these without the advice of Jan Odelstad, Rysiek Sliwinski, Howard Sobel, and especially Kaj Børge Hansen. Kaj Børge took upon himself the Herculean task of checking all the theorems in this essay, and he suggested many substantial improvements. I would also like to thank Rysiek for all his help in practical matters, and for his contagious good spirit. An earlier version of a part of this thesis was successfully defended at the Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto. My thesis committee in Toronto, Wayne Sumner, Howard Sobel and Arthur Ripstein, were always willing iv to discuss not only topics from my thesis but also philosophy in general, and I’ve learned a lot from those occasions. Both Wayne and Howard continued to help me with my work after my stay in Toronto and they have read and commented in detail on several earlier versions of the present work. From Wayne, I’ve learned most of what I know about theories of welfare and much more. Howard has continuously and assiduously sent me extremely detailed and helpful comments of my work, all of which, I’m sure, I have not been able to address. The suggestions from my external examiner, Thomas Hurka, were also valuable and insightful. During my years in Toronto, I’ve benefited much from discussions with Chandra Kumar and John Gibson. Chandra has influenced my philosophical thinking far more than he can imagine. Financial support through travel grants from the Swedish Institute, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Swedish-American Foundation, Uppsala University, and Stockholm Nation during my stay in Toronto 1994-97 is gratefully acknowledged. Over the years, I’ve discussed parts of this thesis with Thomas Anderberg, John Broome, Bruce Chapman, Danny Goldstick, Gert Helgesson, Bernard Katz, Karsten Klint Jensen, Andrew Latus, Per-Erik Malmnäs, Joshua Mozersky, Tomasz Pol, Jesper Ryberg, Peter Ryman, Pura Sanchez, Michelle Switzer, and Folke Tersman. With Jan Österberg, I’ve discussed most of the thesis and his work in population axiology has been a source of inspiration. I’m grateful to them all for the constructive criticism and the stimulating discussion they have offered. Earlier versions of parts of this thesis were presented at Svenska Filosofidagarna, Göteborg, June, 1999; “Utilitarianism Reconsidered”, ISUS, New Orleans, April 1997; “Utilitarianisme: Analyse et Histoire”, Association Charles Gide pour l'Étude de la Pensée Économique and the University of Lille, January 1996; The Learned Societies Congress, Canadian Philosophical Association, UQAM, Montreal, June 1995; the University of Copenhagen, Dept. of Philosophy, October 1997, and at the University of Calgary, Dept. of Philosophy, January 2000. I would like to thank the participants at these occasions for their stimulating criticism. The long written comments on one of my papers from Charles Blackorby, Walter Bossert, David Donaldson and from Derek Parfit were also very helpful. v Without the intellectual and emotional support of Adeze Igboemeka, I doubt that this thesis would ever have been written. Without her linguistic advice, it would have been unreadable. I dedicate this essay to her. Uppsala, April 17, 2000. Gustaf Arrhenius vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 2 BASIC CONCEPTS AND PRESUPPOSITIONS....................................................................................6 2.1 WELFARE AND THE VALUE OF LIFE .......................................................................................................6 2.2 ORDERINGS OF LIVES ..........................................................................................................................12 2.2.1 Comparative Ordering Presuppositions for the Adequacy Conditions .....................................13 2.2.2 Categorical Ordering Presuppositions for the Adequacy Conditions .......................................15 2.2.3 The Relation between Comparative and Categorical Welfare Statements ................................17 2.2.4 Ordering Presuppositions of Population Theories and Measurement of Welfare.....................27 2.3 THE DEFINITION OF A POPULATION .....................................................................................................33 2.4 THE DEFINITION OF A POPULATION AXIOLOGY ...................................................................................38 3 TOTAL AND AVERAGE UTILITARIANISM.....................................................................................37 3.1 TOTAL UTILITARIANISM AND THE REPUGNANT CONCLUSION .............................................................37 3.1.1 Other Things Being Equal .........................................................................................................42 3.1.2 Is the Repugnant Conclusion Unacceptable? ............................................................................45 3.1.3 Does Total Utilitarianism Imply
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logic in Action: Wittgenstein's Logical Pragmatism and the Impotence of Scepticism
    This is the final, pre-publication draft. Please cite only from published paper in Philosophical Investigations 26:2 (April 2003), 125-48. LOGIC IN ACTION: WITTGENSTEIN'S LOGICAL PRAGMATISM AND THE IMPOTENCE OF SCEPTICISM DANIÈLE MOYAL-SHARROCK UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA 1. The Many Faces of Certainty: Wittgenstein's Logical Pragmatism So I am trying to say something that sounds like pragmatism. (OC 422) In his struggle to uncover the nature of our basic beliefs, Wittgenstein depicts them variously in On Certainty: he thinks of them in propositional terms, in pictorial terms and in terms of acting. As propositions, they would be of a peculiar sort – a hybrid between a logical and an empirical proposition (OC 136, 309). These are the so-called 'hinge propositions' of On Certainty (OC 341). Wittgenstein also thinks of these beliefs as forming a picture, a World-picture – or Weltbild (OC 167). This is a step in the right (nonpropositional) direction, but not the ultimate step. Wittgenstein's ultimate and crucial depiction of our basic beliefs is in terms of a know-how, an attitude, a way of acting (OC 204). Here, he treads on pragmatist ground. But can Wittgenstein be labelled a pragmatist, having himself rejected the affiliation because of its utility implication? But you aren't a pragmatist? No. For I am not saying that a proposition is true if it is useful. (RPP I, 266) Wittgenstein resists affiliation with pragmatism because he does not want his use of use to be confused with the utility use of use. For him, it is not that a proposition is true if it is useful, but that use gives the proposition its sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Anintrapersonaladditionparadox
    An Intrapersonal Addition Paradox Jacob M. Nebel December 1, 2017 Abstract I present a new problem for those of us who wish to avoid the repugnant conclu- sion. The problem is an intrapersonal, risky analogue of the mere addition paradox. The problem is important for three reasons. First, it highlights new conditions at least one of which must be rejected in order to avoid the repugnant conclusion. Some solu- tions to Parfit’s original puzzle do not obviously generalize to our intrapersonal puzzle in a plausible way. Second, it raises new concerns about how to make decisions un- der uncertainty for the sake of people whose existence might depend on what we do. Different answers to these questions suggest different solutions to the extant puzzles in population ethics. And, third, the problem suggests new difficulties for leading views about the value of a person’s life compared to her nonexistence. 1 The Mere Addition Paradox Many of us want to avoid what Parfit (1984) calls The Repugnant Conclusion: For any population of excellent lives, there is some population of mediocre lives whose existence would be better. By “better,” I mean something like what (Parfit 2011, 41) calls the impartial-reason-implying sense. One thing is better than another in this sense just in case, from an impartial point of view, we would have most reason to prefer the one to the other; two things are equally good in this sense just in case, from an impartial point of view, we would have most reason 1 to be indifferent between them.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Nature of Moral Ideals PART II
    12 On the Nature of Moral Ideals PART II In chapter 11 , we saw that Parfi t appealed to an Essentially Comparative View of Equality in presenting his Mere Addition Paradox, and that Parfi t now believes that his doing so was a big mistake. More generally, Parfi t now thinks that we should reject any Essentially Comparative View about the goodness of outcomes, which means that we must reject the Essentially Comparative View for all moral ideals relevant to assessing the goodness of outcomes. I noted my agreement with Parfi t that we should reject an Essentially Comparative View of Equality. But should we take the further step of rejecting an Essentially Comparative View for all moral ideals, in favor of the Internal Aspects View of Moral Ideals? Do we, in fact, open ourselves up to serious error if we allow our judgment about alternatives like A and A + to be infl uenced by whether or not A + involves Mere Addition? It may seem the answers to these questions must surely be “Yes!” Aft er all, as we saw in chapter 11 , adopting the Internal Aspects View would give us a way of reject- ing the Mere Addition Paradox. More important, it would enable us to avoid intran- sitivity in our all-things-considered judgments (in my wide reason-implying sense), allow the “all-things-considered better than” relation to apply to all sets of comparable outcomes, and license the Principle of Like Comparability for Equivalents. More- over, in addition to the unwanted implications of its denial, the Internal Aspects View has great appeal in its own right.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic Model Workbook
    Logic Model Workbook INNOVATION NETWORK, INC. www.innonet.org • [email protected] Logic Model Workbook Table of Contents Page Introduction - How to Use this Workbook .....................................................................2 Before You Begin .................................................................................................................3 Developing a Logic Model .................................................................................................4 Purposes of a Logic Model ............................................................................................... 5 The Logic Model’s Role in Evaluation ............................................................................ 6 Logic Model Components – Step by Step ....................................................................... 6 Problem Statement: What problem does your program address? ......................... 6 Goal: What is the overall purpose of your program? .............................................. 7 Rationale and Assumptions: What are some implicit underlying dynamics? ....8 Resources: What do you have to work with? ......................................................... 9 Activities: What will you do with your resources? ................................................ 11 Outputs: What are the tangible products of your activities? ................................. 13 Outcomes: What changes do you expect to occur as a result of your work?.......... 14 Outcomes Chain ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 086 604 SO 006 822 AUTHOR Norris, Jack A., Jr. TITLE Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla. PUB DATE 72 NOTE 20p.; Authorized Course of Instruction for the Quinmester Program EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Course Objectives; Curriculum Guides; Grade 10; Grade 11; Grade 12; *Language Arts; Learnin4 Activities; *Logic; Non Western Civilization; *Philosophy; Resource Guides; Secondary Grades; *Social Studies; *Social Studies Units; Western Civilization IDENTIFIERS *Quinmester Program ABSTRACT Western and non - western philosophers and their ideas are introduced to 10th through 12th grade students in this general social studies Quinmester course designed to be used as a preparation for in-depth study of the various schools of philosophical thought. By acquainting students with the questions and categories of philosophy, a point of departure for further study is developed. Through suggested learning activities the meaning of philosopky is defined. The Socratic, deductive, inductive, intuitive and eclectic approaches to philosophical thought are examined, as are three general areas of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology,and axiology. Logical reasoning is applied to major philosophical questions. This course is arranged, as are other quinmester courses, with sections on broad goals, course content, activities, and materials. A related document is ED 071 937.(KSM) FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY U S DEPARTMENT EDUCATION OF HEALTH. NAT10N41
    [Show full text]
  • Intransitivity and Future Generations: Debunking Parfit's Mere Addition Paradox
    Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 20, No. 2,Intransitivity 2003 and Future Generations 187 Intransitivity and Future Generations: Debunking Parfit’s Mere Addition Paradox KAI M. A. CHAN Duties to future persons contribute critically to many important contemporaneous ethical dilemmas, such as environmental protection, contraception, abortion, and population policy. Yet this area of ethics is mired in paradoxes. It appeared that any principle for dealing with future persons encountered Kavka’s paradox of future individuals, Parfit’s repugnant conclusion, or an indefensible asymmetry. In 1976, Singer proposed a utilitarian solution that seemed to avoid the above trio of obstacles, but Parfit so successfully demonstrated the unacceptability of this position that Singer abandoned it. Indeed, the apparently intransitivity of Singer’s solution contributed to Temkin’s argument that the notion of “all things considered better than” may be intransitive. In this paper, I demonstrate that a time-extended view of Singer’s solution avoids the intransitivity that allows Parfit’s mere addition paradox to lead to the repugnant conclusion. However, the heart of the mere addition paradox remains: the time-extended view still yields intransitive judgments. I discuss a general theory for dealing with intransitivity (Tran- sitivity by Transformation) that was inspired by Temkin’s sports analogy, and demonstrate that such a solution is more palatable than Temkin suspected. When a pair-wise comparison also requires consideration of a small number of relevant external alternatives, we can avoid intransitivity and the mere addition paradox without infinite comparisons or rejecting the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Principle. Disagreement regarding the nature and substance of our duties to future persons is widespread.
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology on Management
    The Second International Conference on Entrepreneurship STUDY OF ONTOLOGY, EPISTEMOLOGY AND AXIOLOGY ON MANAGEMENT Rahmat Setiawan1 Airlangga University, Surabaya INDONESIA Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT There is still a difference of opinion among experts in the field of management of what is meant by management, namely whether the management is a science, an art or a profession. In addition, the management theory and studies have also experienced rapid growth, especially until the 19th century until the present. These developments have given rise to various groups of schools of thought about the management, which is a group of classical management perspective, a group of behavior management perspective, and a group of quantitative management perspective. Therefore, it is necessary to study on the development of management in terms of the philosophy of science perspective. By doing this assessment, management will be studied ontological, epistemological and axiological. Ontologically, management is the science, art and profession of work done through others. Material object is a behavior management work done through others. In management development, ontologically most experts view reality of social management in management as something objective, not subjective. Epistemologically, in management development, the approach most widely used by management experts is a deductive approach. However, the trend also shows that the inductive approach is also widely used lately. In axiological, largely through the efforts of study and research in the development of management is not value-free because the paradigm used by most bear management experts in developing management are positivist or functionalist paradigm. However, in applying the results of research to take a policy, then the leader of the company must still pay attention to the values of ethics and humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Axiology and the Philosophy of Social Science; Esp., Political Science
    Formal Axiology and the Philosophy of Social Science; esp., Political Science Introduction In the 22 centuries from Aristotle to Galileo, man’s way of life, and knowledge of nature, changed very little compared to the explosion of invention and discovery in the mere four centuries since Galileo. According to philosopher of science, R.S. Hartman, Galileo empowered humanity to make such progress when he “created the empirico-mathematical world picture;” that is, the worldview of natural science.1 During the Scientific Revolution, the European sense of reality was transformed from a dream-like condition under the control of “God’s Will,” and which only He could fully understand, to sets of processes which could be understood and explained in precise mathematical formulas. Natural philosophy, prior to Galileo, offered “explanations” of natural phenomena, but without much precision. For example, Aristotle defined “movement” as “the transition from potentiality to actuality.” This was accepted and studied for centuries. But Galileo re-defined “motion,” so that it became mathematically measurable. Rather than the vagaries of “realizing potential,” Galileo offered the formula V=s/t. He showed that by measuring the space (s) traversed by an object, and the time (t) it took, a precise measurement of speed, or velocity (V), could be calculated. Now motion was much less a mystery. Hartman notes that “Galileo’s formula led to a multitude of consequences; [eventually including] the systems of Newton and Einstein.”2 Galileo thus changed the way of thinking about nature from vague philosophical speculation to a method applying precise formal analysis and explanation. That shift in the way of thinking made possible all that followed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality
    1 The ethical consistency of animal equality Stijn Bruers, Sept 2013, DRAFT 2 Contents 0. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 0.1 SUMMARY: TOWARDS A COHERENT THEORY OF ANIMAL EQUALITY ........................................................................ 9 1. PART ONE: ETHICAL CONSISTENCY ......................................................................................................... 18 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 18 a) The input data: moral intuitions .......................................................................................................... 18 b) The method: rule universalism............................................................................................................. 20 1.2 THE GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3 THE PROBLEM: MORAL ILLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 30 a) Optical illusions .................................................................................................................................... 30 b) Moral illusions ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Indian Logic from the Point of View of Computer Science
    Sadhana, "Col. 19, Part 6, December 1994, pp 971-983. © Printed in India A survey of Indian logic from the point of view of computer science V V S SARMA Department of Computer Science & Automation, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India Abstract. Indian logic has a long history. It somewhat covers the domains of two of the six schools (darsanas) of Indian philosophy, namely, Nyaya and Vaisesika. The generally accepted definition of In- dian logic over the ages is the science which ascertains valid knowledge either by means of six senses or by means of the five members of the syllogism. In other words, perception and inference constitute the sub- ject matter of logic. The science of logic evolved in India through three ~ges: the ancient, the medieval and the modern, spanning almost thirty centuries. Advances in Computer Science, in particular, in Artificial Intelligence have got researchers in these areas interested in the basic problems of language, logic and cognition in the past three decades. In the 1980s, Artificial Intelligence has evolved into knowledge-based and intelligent system design, and the knowledge base and inference engine have become standard subsystems of an intelligent System. One of the important issues in the design of such systems is knowledge acquisition from humans who are experts in a branch of learning (such as medicine or law) and transferring that knowledge to a computing system. The second important issue in such systems is the validation of the knowl- edge base of the system i.e. ensuring that the knowledge is complete and consistent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Set of Solutions to Parfit's Problems
    NOÛS 35:2 ~2001! 214–238 A Set of Solutions to Parfit’s Problems Stuart Rachels University of Alabama In Part Four of Reasons and Persons Derek Parfit searches for “Theory X,” a satisfactory account of well-being.1 Theories of well-being cover the utilitarian part of ethics but don’t claim to cover everything. They say nothing, for exam- ple, about rights or justice. Most of the theories Parfit considers remain neutral on what well-being consists in; his ingenious problems concern form rather than content. In the end, Parfit cannot find a theory that solves each of his problems. In this essay I propose a theory of well-being that may provide viable solu- tions. This theory is hedonic—couched in terms of pleasure—but solutions of the same form are available even if hedonic welfare is but one aspect of well-being. In Section 1, I lay out the “Quasi-Maximizing Theory” of hedonic well-being. I motivate the least intuitive part of the theory in Section 2. Then I consider Jes- per Ryberg’s objection to a similar theory. In Sections 4–6 I show how the theory purports to solve Parfit’s problems. If my arguments succeed, then the Quasi- Maximizing Theory is one of the few viable candidates for Theory X. 1. The Quasi-Maximizing Theory The Quasi-Maximizing Theory incorporates four principles. 1. The Conflation Principle: One state of affairs is hedonically better than an- other if and only if one person’s having all the experiences in the first would be hedonically better than one person’s having all the experiences in the second.2 The Conflation Principle sanctions translating multiperson comparisons into single person comparisons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Etienne Gilson Series 21
    The Etienne Gilson Series 21 Remapping Scholasticism by MARCIA L. COLISH 3 March 2000 Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies This lecture and its publication was made possible through the generous bequest of the late Charles J. Sullivan (1914-1999) Note: the author may be contacted at: Department of History Oberlin College Oberlin OH USA 44074 ISSN 0-708-319X ISBN 0-88844-721-3 © 2000 by Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 59 Queen’s Park Crescent East Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C4 Printed in Canada nce upon a time there were two competing story-lines for medieval intellectual history, each writing a major role for scholasticism into its script. Although these story-lines were O created independently and reflected different concerns, they sometimes overlapped and gave each other aid and comfort. Both exerted considerable influence on the way historians of medieval speculative thought conceptualized their subject in the first half of the twentieth cen- tury. Both versions of the map drawn by these two sets of cartographers illustrated what Wallace K. Ferguson later described as “the revolt of the medievalists.”1 One was confined largely to the academy and appealed to a wide variety of medievalists, while the other had a somewhat narrower draw and reflected political and confessional, as well as academic, concerns. The first was the anti-Burckhardtian effort to push Renaissance humanism, understood as combining a knowledge and love of the classics with “the discovery of the world and of man,” back into the Middle Ages. The second was inspired by the neo-Thomist revival launched by Pope Leo XIII, and was inhabited almost exclusively by Roman Catholic scholars.
    [Show full text]