Jonas Harney

Prioritarianism is claimed to fare badly in variable-population comparisons. This is so, I argue, because it is understood as Absolute Prioritarianism, as invoking an increasing, strictly concave function of absolute welfare. That misunderstands Parfit’s Priority View by considering the absolute welfare rather than the welfare gains and losses. Therefore, it implies a super-repugnant conclusion and the desirability of welfare diffusion by creating people. However, both implications are implausible – at least if we reject that people can be better off by coming into existence. I present an alternative – Comparative Prioritarianism – which is concerned only with individual gains and losses. I argue that this avoids the implausible implications, it can be supplemented with further principles that solve the problems of population ethics, and it prevents cyclical orderings if we adopt a set-wise approach to comparing outcomes. Therefore, Comparative Prioritarianism is better suited to capture the core intuition of the Priority View.

Die Populationsethik stellt nicht nur Fragen an den Utilitarismus danach, welche die beste oder gebotene Population wäre. Sie wirft auch Fragen darüber auf, wie wir den Utilitarismus verstehen sollten angesichts theoretischer Probleme und unplausibler Implikationen in Fällen mit variablen Populationen – in Fällen, in denen unsere Handlungen nicht nur das Wohlergehen, sondern auch die Identität oder Anzahl der Individuen beeinflussen. Geht es um die Maximierung der Gewinne und Verluste für Individuen? Dann sind wir jedoch mit dem Problem der Nicht-Identität und des Leidens konfrontiert. Oder geht es um die Maximierung des Nutzens selbst, unabhängig davon, ob dieser gut oder schlecht für Individuen ist? Dann behandeln wir Individuen jedoch als bloße Container dessen, was eigentlich zählt. Sind Zwischenpositionen möglich, die dieses scheinbare Dilemma lösen? Dieser Beitrag geht den verschiedenen Möglichkeiten nach, wie die moralische Relevanz von Wohlergehen oder Nutzen im Utilitarismus verstanden werden sollte, und zeigt die Probleme der verschiedenen Positionen auf. Letztlich kann keines der Verständnisse alle Probleme lösen. Deshalb wird die Möglichkeit von pluralen Positionen eröffnet.

Sollten wir laut Utilitarismus die Summe oder den Durchschnitt an Nutzen maximieren? Summen- und Durchschnittsutilitarismus unterscheiden sich in ihren Implikationen nicht, solange unsere Handlungen keinen Einfluss auf die die Anzahl der existierenden Individuen haben. Wenn unsere Handlungen diese jedoch verändern, dann folgen völlig unterschiedliche Handlungsanweisungen. Der Summenutilitarismus impliziert, dass wir Kinder zeugen sollten, solange das die Nutzensumme erhöht; und zwar sogar dann, wenn dadurch das Leben aller existierender Individuen nur noch gerade so wert ist, gelebt zu werden. Der Durchschnittsutilitarismus vermeidet diese Implikationen, allerdings nur zu dem Preis, dass es dann unter gewissen Umständen geboten sein kann, Individuen mit schlechten Leben, anstatt Individuen mit guten Leben in Existenz zu bringen. Dieser Beitrag zeichnet die Unterschiede und Implikationen der beiden Varianten des Utilitarismus sowie möglicher Mischformen nach und zeigt auf, dass alle Varianten, die dem Durchschnittsnutzen moralisches Gewicht geben, an der Absurdität ihrer Implikationen scheitern.

On the Dual View, absolute and comparative welfare provide moral reasons to make individuals well off and better off. Given that dual reason-giving force, what reason provides welfare overall? I explore two approaches. The Collective Approach first aggregates the absolute and comparative reasons separately before combining them at the collective level. However, it implies that, if an individual gains or loses enough welfare, we have reasons to create an unhappy rather than another happy individual. The Individual Approach combines the absolute and comparative reasons for each individual before aggregating across all individuals. It avoids the objection if comparative reasons mitigate but don’t outweigh absolute reasons. That, however, implies hypersensitivity and contradicts the prioritarian idea. We could also restrict comparative reasons, but only on pain of effectively abandoning the Dual View. Or we accept one half of the objection and adopt an asymmetry for comparative welfare to avoid the other half.

According to the person-affecting view, the ethics of welfare should be cashed out in terms of how the individuals are affected. While the narrow version fails to solve the non-identity problem, the wide version is subject to the repugnant conclusion. A middle view promises to do better – the Interpersonal Comparative View of Welfare (ICV). It modifies the narrow view by abstracting away from individuals’ identities to account for interpersonal gains and losses. The paper assesses ICV’s merits and flaws. ICV solves the non-identity problem, avoids the repugnant conclusion, and seems to accommodate the person-affecting intuition. But it cuts too many things along the way: ICV obstructs the advantage of the wide view to account for all future individuals’ welfare, abandons the intuitions that underlie the narrow view, and even violates its own presuppositions by turning out to be merely pseudo person-affecting.

Particular persons have claims against being made worse off than they could have been. The literature, however, has focused primarily on only two-option cases; yet, these cases fail to capture all of the morally relevant factors, especially when a person’s existence is in question. This paper explores how to assess claims in multiple-option choice sets. We scrutinize the only extant proposal, offered by Michael Otsuka, which we call the Weakening View. In light of its problems, we develop an alternative: the Combining View. The Weakening View holds that a person’s claim against a loss of well-being relative to one distribution is weakened by the availability of further alternatives relative to which the person gains well-being. By contrast, our view holds that a person has an overall claim for or against a certain distribution relative to the whole option set, where overall claims are second-order functions of the different pairwise claims. Finally, we defend the Combining View by exploring its implications for the impact of a person’s possible non-existence on their overall claims, and we develop a proposal for how the number of distributions relative to which a person gains or loses welfare influences the strength of their overall claims.

Parfit (2017) proposed a novel principle for outcome betterness in different people and different number choices. It is claimed to solve the Non-Identity Problem while avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion, and it shall do so in person-affecting rather than in impersonal terms. According to this Wide Dual Person-Affecting Principle, one of two outcomes would be (i) in one way better if this outcome would together benefit people more, and (ii) in another way better if this outcome would benefit each person more. I argue that a plausible construal of this principle has two features that make it vulnerable to objections. First, the most plausible interpretation of the second part of the principle turns out to incorporate an average function. Although this helps to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, it implausibly implies that it can be better to add further people with less bad but still miserable lives to populations consisting only of lives full of suffering. Second, the principle is not based on a comparative but on an intrinsic notion of benefit. This allows to solve the Non-Identity Problem, yet it accounts only for a weak sense of person-affecting rather than for the more substantive person-affecting intuition that it is morally significant that particular people are made better (or worse) off. Eventually, I highlight what we can, nevertheless, learn from Parfit’s idea of combining different ways in which outcomes might be better