DOCSLIB.ORG

Catastrophic Climate Change, Population Ethics and Intergenerational Equity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Catastrophic Climate Change, Population Ethics and Intergenerational Equity Catastrophic climate change, population ethics and intergenerational equity Aurélie Méjean∗1, Antonin Pottier2, Stéphane Zuber3 and Marc Fleurbaey4 1CIRED - CNRS, Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement (CNRS, Agro ParisTech, Ponts ParisTech, EHESS, CIRAD) 2Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne 3Paris School of Economics - CNRS 4Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University Abstract Climate change raises the issue of intergenerational equity. As climate change threatens ir- reversible and dangerous impacts, possibly leading to extinction, the most relevant trade-off may not be between present and future consumption, but between present consumption and the mere existence of future generations. To investigate this trade-off, we build an integrated assessment model that explicitly accounts for the risk of extinction of future generations. We compare different climate policies, which change the probability of catastrophic outcomes yielding an early extinction, within the class of number-dampened utilitarian social welfare functions. We analyze the role of inequality aversion and population ethics. A preference for large populations and low inequality aversion favour the most ambitious climate policy, although there are cases where the effect of inequality aversion on the preferred policy is reversed. This is due to two effects: a higher inequality aversion reduces both the welfare gained when postponing climate policy to increase the consumption of present generations and the welfare gained when delaying extinction. We also show that the risk of extinction is the main driver of the preferred policy over climate damages affecting consumption. Keywords: Climate change; Catastrophic risk; Equity; Population; Climate-economy model JEL Classification: D63 ; Q01 ; Q54 ; Q56 ; Q5. ∗Corresponding author: [email protected] - CIRED, 45 bis avenue de la Belle Gabrielle, 94736 Nogent- sur-Marne, France 1 1 Introduction The risk of abrupt and irreversible changes to the climate is one of the five reasons for concern identified by the IPCC (McCarthy et al., 2001; Field et al., 2014). Such abrupt changes are generally associated with tipping points (Lenton et al., 2008), like the shutoff of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet or the dieback of the Amazon rainforest. They may have indirect impacts, for instance through increased migration and conflicts (Reuveny, 2007; Hsiang et al., 2013). Catastrophic outcomes can also arise from discontinuities in the response of socio-economic systems to climate change. From the very beginning, taking these catastrophes into account has been a daunting task of the economics of climate change (Dowlatabadi, 1999; Tol, 2003; Azar and Lindgren, 2003). Following the seminal work of Cline(1992) and Nordhaus(1994), the economics literature has mainly considered climate change as an issue of intertemporal consumption trade-off, where the costs of climate change mitigation lower consumption today, but increase consumption in the future as some damages due to climate change are avoided. In this framework, catastrophes are accounted for in three different ways: as the certainty-equivalent loss of risky castastrophic damages (Nordhaus and Boyer, 2000), as a sudden jump in climate damages when the temperature rises above a given temperature threshold (Ambrosi et al., 2003; Pottier et al., 2015), or through a power law damage function with a large exponent (Hope, 2006; Ackerman et al., 2010; Weitzman, 2012). The stochastic nature of catastrophes is also sometimes explicitly accounted for, see for instance Peck and Teisberg(1995) and recent works on climate tipping points (Lontzek et al., 2015; Lemoine and Traeger, 2016). A smaller strand of literature (Gjerde et al., 1999; Tsur and Zemel, 2009) considers that abrupt climate change introduces an irreversible regime shift in the sense that post-catastrophe welfare is independent from pre-catastrophe actions (usually it is assumed to be zero or constant), in the tradition of modelling environmental catastrophes of Cropper(1976) or Clarke and Reed(1994). The trade-off is then not only between present and future consumption, but also between present consumption and catastrophic risk reduction (Weitzman, 2009). In this context, Bommier et al. (2015) show that the representation of preferences in terms of risk aversion greatly matters for the appropriate level of mitigation. The possibility that social welfare may drop to zero after the catastrophe can be interpreted as human extinction. This is indeed an outcome considered in the Stern Review (2007), which 2 uses the possible extinction of humanity to justify pure time discounting (see also Dasgupta and Heal(1979) for an early proposal). Because climate change and climate policy affect the size of Earth’s population in these models, evaluating climate policies then raises the issue of valuing varying population sizes (Broome, 2012). Introducing the risk of human extinction compels to spell out the collective attitudes towards population size, a question that has been largely ignored in the literature and should be treated in an explicit way to inform climate policy analysis (Millner, 2013; Kolstad et al., 2014). When the risk of climate catastrophe entails a risk of extinction of the human population, pop- ulation ethics and risk preferences matter. In this paper, we examine the trade-off between consumption and the existence of future generations. To do so, we build an integrated assess- ment model that explicitly accounts for the risk of extinction of future generations. We evaluate different climate policies within the class of number-dampened utilitarian social welfare func- tions, and we analyze the role of inequality aversion and population ethics. This paper is thus at the crossroads of the literature on catastrophic climate change and the fledgling litterature on population ethics applied to climate change. If the importance of population growth for future greenhouse gas emissions has long been recognized (Gaffin and O’Neill, 1997; Kelly and Kolstad, 2001), and thus population control has been mentioned as a possible way to mitigate climate change (see Cafaro(2012) for an advocacy), it is only very recently that the role of population ethics for climate policy analysis has started to be discussed. Adler and Treich(2015) propose a prioritarian framework to evaluate scenarios with variable population in the case of climate change. Scovronick et al.(2017) show that putting a larger weight on population size warrants tighter climate policy whereas Lawson and Spears(2018) discuss how the preference for large populations can be overturned when environmental constraints are accounted for. In this paper, the climate catastrophe is defined as the extinction of the human population. We thus account for the risk of extinction. Note that due to the speculative nature of the risk studied, our analysis should be taken mainly as a thought experiment, pointing to orders of magnitude and qualitative judgements instead of sharp, quantitative statements. This paper differs from previous work as it explicitly defines the population ethics adopted for the purpose of evaluating climate impacts on population size. It explores the impact of inequality aversion and of attitudes towards population size on the preferred climate policy when the possibility of such a catastrophe is accounted for. It adopts number-dampened utilitarianism (Ng, 1986) to evaluate and order climate policies. We use the integrated assessment model RESPONSE 3 (Ambrosi et al., 2003; Pottier et al., 2015), representing the interaction between climate and the economy, to assess the impacts of three scenarios (a business-as-usual case and two climate policies with different levels of stringency) in terms of future consumption paths and associated climate change. Our method differs from the standard approach in climate change economics, which computes the optimal climate policy (often the optimal carbon tax or the social cost of carbon) and examines its sensitivity to various model parameters. Instead, we follow the insight of Michal Kalecki who defines planning as “variant thinking” (Sachs, 1977). Other authors have used a method similar to ours, evaluating a set of exogenous climate policies defined in terms of yearly CO2 emissions, along with a business-as-usual scenario, see for instance Nordhaus and Boyer(1999), Nordhaus(2010), Dietz and Asheim(2012) and more recently Dietz and Matei (2016). The rationale behind our choice is for the analysis to be relevant to on-going policy debates on future emission trajectories. The paper is structured as follows. Section2 presents the framework used to evaluate the effects of climate policies. The analytical results presented in section3 demonstrate that we cannot predict the impact of changes of ethical parameters (the inequality aversion coefficient and the population ethics coefficient) on policy decisions. This is because the preferred climate policy depends on the relative impact of these ethical parameters on the welfare gained due to a lower hazard rate and the welfare lost due to a lower consumption stream. In the numerical analysis presented in section4, we find cases where increasing inequality aversion favours the most ambitious climate policy. This rather unusual result is explained by the relative effect of inequality aversion on the risk and consumption components of the welfare difference. We also find that the risk of extinction is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Population Ethics
    Population Ethics Johan E. Gustafsson 1 Populations as Boxes The size of the population People’s well-being level The zero level of well-being 2 Total Utilitarianism A first population is at least as good as a second population if and only if the sum total of well-being is at least as great in the first as in the second. 3 Derek Parfit (1984, p. 388) The Repugnant Conclusion For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with 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 barely worth living. 4 The Repugnant Conclusion A Z For every population like A, there is a better population like Z. 5 Average Utilitarianism A first population is at least as good as a second population if and only if the average well-being is at least as great in the first as in the second. 6 Average utilitarianism avoids the repugnant conclusion, since it yields that A is better than Z. A Z But average utilitarianism has other problems. It yields that a large population of people with very high well-being is worse than a population with only one person who has just slightly higher well-being than the average in the first population. 7 The Mere-Addition Paradox A A+ B Intuitively, it seems that A - A+ ≺ B. Then, by transitivity, we have A ≺ B. 8 A A+ B B+ C Z We can iterate the reasoning in the mere-addition paradox: A - A+ ≺ B - B+ ≺ C ..
    [Show full text]
  • Frick, Johann David
    'Making People Happy, Not Making Happy People': A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Frick, Johann David. 2014. 'Making People Happy, Not Making Happy People': A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:13064981 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ʹMaking People Happy, Not Making Happy Peopleʹ: A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics A dissertation presented by Johann David Anand Frick to The Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Philosophy Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts September 2014 © 2014 Johann Frick All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisors: Professor T.M. Scanlon Author: Johann Frick Professor Frances Kamm ʹMaking People Happy, Not Making Happy Peopleʹ: A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics Abstract This dissertation provides a defense of the normative intuition known as the Procreation Asymmetry, according to which there is a strong moral reason not to create a life that will foreseeably not be worth living, but there is no moral reason to create a life just because it would foreseeably be worth living. Chapter 1 investigates how to reconcile the Procreation Asymmetry with our intuitions about another recalcitrant problem case in population ethics: Derek Parfit’s Non‑Identity Problem.
    [Show full text]
  • On Climate Change Mitigation Policy
    Impact of population growth and population ethics on climate change mitigation policy Noah Scovronicka,1,2, Mark B. Budolfsonb,1, Francis Dennigc, Marc Fleurbaeya,d, Asher Sieberte, Robert H. Socolowf, Dean Spearsg,h,1, and Fabian Wagnera,i,j aWoodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; bDepartment of Philosophy, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405; cYale–NUS College, Singapore 138527; dCenter for Human Values, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; eInternational Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964; fDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; gDepartment of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712; hEconomics and Planning Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi, India, 110016; iAndlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; and jInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria A-2361 Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 26, 2017 (received for review November 4, 2016) Future population growth is uncertain and matters for climate Any framework for estimating the SCC and optimal miti- policy: higher growth entails more emissions and means more gation effort has two prerequisites with respect to population: people will be vulnerable to climate-related impacts. We show (i) Emissions pressure: Analyses must explicitly account for a that how future population is valued importantly determines mit- range of plausible future population growth rates—which have igation decisions. Using the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy proved difficult to estimate even over relatively short time peri- model, we explore two approaches to valuing population: a dis- ods (4)—and their corresponding links with greenhouse gas counted version of total utilitarianism (TU), which considers total emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Asymmetry of Population Ethics: Experimental Social Choice and Dual- Process Moral Reasoning
    DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 12537 The Asymmetry of Population Ethics: Experimental Social Choice and Dual- Process Moral Reasoning Dean Spears AUGUST 2019 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 12537 The Asymmetry of Population Ethics: Experimental Social Choice and Dual- Process Moral Reasoning Dean Spears University of Texas at Austin, Indian Statistical Institute, IFFS and IZA AUGUST 2019 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. ISSN: 2365-9793 IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA DP No. 12537 AUGUST 2019 ABSTRACT The Asymmetry of Population Ethics: Experimental Social Choice and Dual- Process Moral Reasoning Population ethics is widely considered to be exceptionally important and exceptionally difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Partha Dasgupta, Birth and Death
    Comments Welcome Birth and Death by Partha Dasgupta* University of Cambridge and New College of the Humanities, London First Version: January 2016 Revised: March 2016 * The author is the Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Cambridge, Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, and Fellow of New College of the Humanities London. E-mail: [email protected] 1 Acknowledgements This article is an adaptation of Chapter 10 of Time and the Generations, a book I am preparing around my Arrow Lectures at Stanford University (1997), Columbia University (2011), and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2012), respectively, and my 2011 Munich Lectures in Economics. Valuing potential lives and the related idea of optimum population have intrigued me ever since I was a graduate student, and I am grateful to the late James Meade for arousing my interest in them. The subject is hard, so hard that over the years I have fumbled about to find ways to express my disquiet with the dominant formulation of the problem and the literature surrounding the paradoxes it harbours. And I am all too conscious that readers may find me fumbling even now. Parental desires and needs in the face of socio-economic and ecological constraints are the basis on which economic demography has been built. Moral philosophers in contrast study population ethics, but shy away from characterising the constraints under which the ethics is to be put to work. No system of ethics should be expected to yield unquestionable directives in all conceivable circumstances, even to the same person.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Environmental Problems and Humanity
    Environmental Problems and Humanity 1 Environmental Problems 1 and Humanity What are environmental problems? How are they to be identified, and what generates them? While the answers may seem obvious, these questions turn out to repay reflection, not least because prob- lems are identified differently by different perspectives, and differ- ent problems are identified as problems. In this chapter, issues considered include how environmental problems are identified, the range of values that people bring to them, theories about their causes, and whether humanity can have a constructive role in curing or alleviating them. The nature and role of environmental ethics itself are also considered. Introduction: environmental problems and the global environment Environmental problems are those problems that arise from human dealings with the natural world and its systems. Human beings cannot help using and modifying tracts of the natural world, since we depend on nature for food, clothing and shelter, for our water supply, and for the air we breathe. But the unintended impacts of human actions are now creating problems like global warming and the extinction of multitudes of species, problems which raise profound issues about how we should live our lives and organize our societies, and which present challenges never encountered by previous generations. Not everyone means the same thing when they speak of ‘environ- ment’ or ‘environmental problems’. They often (and this is a first 2 Environmental Problems and Humanity meaning) mean ‘the surroundings’, natural or otherwise, either of an individual for the duration of her life, or of a society for the duration of its existence, but they sometimes mean (secondly) the objective system of nature that encompasses either local society or human society in general, and that precedes and succeeds it.
    [Show full text]
  • K. Bykvist and T. Campbell, Eds., Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
    Forthcoming: K. Bykvist and T. Campbell, eds., Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Population Overshoot by Aisha Dasgupta* and Partha Dasgupta** 20 September 2018 Final Revision: 15 January 2019 * United Nations Population Division e-mail: <[email protected]> ** Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge; and New College of the Humanities, London e-mail: <[email protected]> The views expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. For their most helpful comments on a previous draft we are grateful to Krister Bykvist, Timothy Campbell, John Cleland, Rachel Friedman, and Robert Solow. 1 Contents Motivation Part I The Desire for Children 1 Rich and Poor: Consumption and Population 2 Two Classes of Externalities 3 Reproductive Rights 4 Socially Embedded Preferences and Conformism 5 Unmet Need, Desired Family Size, and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals Part II How Many People Can Earth Support in Comfort? 6 Ecosystem Services 7 The Biosphere as a Capital Asset 8 Technology and Institutions References Figure 1 Table 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 2 Motivation Ehrlich and Holdren (1971) introduced the metaphor, I=PAT, to draw attention to the significance of the biosphere's carrying capacity for population ethics. The authors traced the impact of human activities on the Earth system to population, affluence (read, per capita consumption of goods and services), and the character of technology in use (including institutions and social capital). Because our impact on the biosphere is proportional to the demands we make of it, and because those demands increase with our economic activity, we can assume our impact on the biosphere increases with economic activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Ethics
    Vol. I What should we do with regard to climate change given that our choices will not just have an impact on the GENERATIONS FUTURE AND ETHICS CLIMATE ON STUDIES well-being of future generations, but also determine who and how many Editors: Paul Bowman Katharina Berndt Rasmussen Berndt Katharina Bowman Paul Editors: people will exist in the future? There is a very rich scientific literature on different emission pathways and the climatic changes associated with them. There are also a substantial number of analyses of the long-term macro economic effects of climate policy. But science cannot say which level of warming we ought to be aiming for or how much consumption we ought to be prepared to sacrifice without an appeal to values and normative principles. The research program Climate Ethics and Future Generations aims to offer this kind of guidance by bringing together the nor - m a tive analyses from philosophy, econo- mics, political science, social psychology, P AP G E R and demography. The main goal is to N I S E deliver comprehensive and cutting-edge K R R research into ethical questions in the I E O context of climate change policy. S W Vol. 1 • • This volume showcases a first collection 2 0 1 1 of eleven working papers by researchers 9 : 1 –1 within the program, who address this question from different disciplines. STUDIES ON Find more information at climateethics.se. INSTITUTE FOR FUTURES STUDIES CLIMATE ETHICS Box 519, SE-101 31 Stockholm, Sweden AND FUTURE GENERATIONS Phone: +46 8 402 12 00 Working paper series 2019:1–11 E-mail: info @iffs.se Editors: Paul Bowman & Katharina Berndt Rasmussen Studies on Climate Ethics and Future Generations Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Directly Valuing Animal Welfare In
    Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics* Alexis Carliera Nicolas Treicha,b January 2020 Forthcoming in International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics Abstract: Research in economics is anthropocentric. It only cares about the welfare of humans, and usually does not concern itself with animals. When it does, animals are treated as resources, biodiversity, or food. That is, animals only have instrumental value for humans. Yet unlike water, trees or vegetables, and like humans, most animals have a brain and a nervous system. They can feel pain and pleasure, and many argue that their welfare should matter. Some economic studies value animal welfare, but only indirectly through humans’ altruistic valuation. This overall position of economics is inconsistent with the utilitarian tradition and can be qualified as speciesist. We suggest that economics should directly value the welfare of sentient animals, at least sometimes. We briefly discuss some possible implications and challenges for (environmental) economics. Key words: Animal welfare, environmental economics, agricultural economics, economic valuation, speciesism, ethics, sentience, effective altruism. JEL codes: Q51, Q18, I30, Z00 (i.e., “other special topics” since there is no specific JEL code referring to “animals”). *Acknowledgements: We thank the editors, three anonymous reviewers, Matt Adler, Emilie Dardenne, Francesca De Petrillo, Loren Geille, Oscar Horta, Brian Tomasik and James Vercammen for useful remarks or discussions. Nicolas Treich acknowledges funding from ANR under grant ANR-17-EURE-0010 (Investissements d’Avenir program), IDEX chair AMEP, FDIR chair and IAST. Corresponding author: Nicolas Treich, [email protected]. a: Toulouse School of Economics, University Toulouse Capitole, France b: INRAE [Type here] 1 Introduction Imagine that a super-intelligent species invades Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rationality and Morality of Human Reproduction
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2014 Why Should One Reproduce? The Rationality and Morality of Human Reproduction Lantz Fleming Miller Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/78 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] WHY SHOULD ONE REPRODUCE? THE RATIONALITY AND MORALITY OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION by LANTZ MILLER A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in Philosophy, The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 LANTZ MILLER All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy Noël Carroll ____________________ ___________________________________________ Date Chair of the Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ___________________________________________ Executive Officer Carol Gould John Greenwood Jesse Prinz Nicholas Pappas Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract WHY SHOULD ONE REPRODUCE? THE RATIONALITY AND MORALITY OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION by LANTZ MILLER Advisor: Professor Carol Gould Human reproduction has long been assumed to be an act of the blind force of nature, to which humans were subject, like the weather. However, with recent concerns about the environmental impact of human population, particularly resource depletion, human reproduction has come to be seen as a moral issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Procreation and Value Can Ethics Deal with Futurity Problems?
    PROCREATION AND VALUE CAN ETHICS DEAL WITH FUTURITY PROBLEMS? DAVID HEYD I. The Uniqueness of the Problem The confrontation with completely novel experiences and phenomena often brings about not only revisions and necessary accommodations in accepted theories but also more radical changes and a reconsideration of meta-theoretical assumptions. Such new data may challenge the conception of the very scope of a discipline or the legitimate application of a certain type of reasoning. This process, well-known and often studied in the development of scientific theorizing, has an analogy in ethics. One fairly dramatic case which illustrates this analogy is the new and intensively discussed field of the ethics of population policy and inter-generational justice. The new facts giving rise to ethical reconsideration are the increasing control over the process of reproduction, both on the collective (demographic) and the individual levels, advances in methods of birth control which enable us to decide whether we want to have children, how many, and when, and medical progress in determining who is going to be born (e.g. artificial insemination, genetic screening, and eugenic procedures). A typical feature of most discussions of population ethics and future generations is the paradoxical nature and counterintuitive implications of all traditional solutions. The reasons for this perplexing state of affairs can be put in terms of the three levels of moral discourse: 1. On the level of moral intuitions: it seems that our intuitions concerning our relation
    [Show full text]
  • Utilitarian Population Ethics: a Survey
    Utilitarian population ethics: a survey Gregory Ponthiere* ** Abstract: This essay is a survey of utilitarian criteria aimed at guiding what Parfit (1984) called Different Number Choices (i.e. choices affecting both people’s number and identities). The emphasis is laid on two aspects of those criteria: their ethical foundations and their implications. Our analysis starts with total, average and critical-level utilitarianisms, against which numerous criticisms, such as Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion and Mere Addition Paradox, were formulated, so that alternative social welfare criteria, as the ones developed by Hurka (1983) and Ng (1986), might seem appealing. However, those criteria are not fully satisfactory, and, as most criteria considered here, they do not stand up to Naverson’s (1967) critique, according to which social welfare cannot be increased or reduced if no existing person is affected. The difficulties resulting from taking Naverson’s critique into account – and thus from considering the Actual Problem rather than the Genesis Problem – are then discussed. It is concluded that utilitarian population ethics might reach an impasse, which might be regarded either as resulting from contradicting intuitions, or as an illustration of utilitarianism’s own limits. But those limits would be faced by any other consequences-based ethical theory in front of Different Number Choices. * F.N.R.S. Research Fellow and C.R.E.P.P., University of Liege (Belgium). ** The author thanks Professor Mirrlees for his comments and suggestions. 1: Introduction As Parfit (1984) underlined, a government’s choices can be of three distinct kinds: Same People Choices (affecting neither the number of people, nor their identities), Same Number Choices (affecting the identities of people, but not their number), and Different Number Choices (affecting both people’s number and identities)1.
    [Show full text]