The Repugnant Conclusion
Version 1.0.0 · Updated 2026-07-30
CORE DEFINITION
A thought experiment. Compare two worlds: World A has a small population, but everyone is extremely happy; World Z has a huge population (trillions), but everyone barely lives (quality of life slightly above 'not wanting to die'). According to the utilitarian logic of 'maximizing total', the total happiness in World Z (population × average happiness) may be far greater than in World A, so World Z is 'better'. But this is counterintuitive and repugnant. -
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
The ethical collapse of 'quantity' vs. 'quality'. - This is highly significant in AI goal-setting and population policy. If we set an AI's goal as 'maximize total human happiness', it might, through
Anchor fast decisions
Parfit in Reasons and Persons points out that if the ethical goal is 'total happiness = population × average happiness', then adding a large number of barely surviving people can make the total exceed that of a few extremely happy people, thus concluding that Z is better—but intuitively A is preferable, exposing the inherent flaw of total utilitarianism.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/4Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradoxverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.