more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 18625

[filed under theme 24. Political Theory / A. Basis of a State / 2. Population / a. Human population ]

Full Idea

Morally, should we double the population, even if it means reducing each person's welfare by almost half (since that will still increase overall utility)?

Gist of Idea

To maximise utility should we double the population, even if life somewhat deteriorates?

Source

Will Kymlicka (Contemporary Political Philosophy (1st edn) [1990], 2.4.b)

Book Ref

Kymlicka,Will: 'Contemporary Political Philosophy (1st edn)' [OUP 1992], p.32

A Reaction

[He cites Derek Parfit for this] The key word is 'almost', which ensures a small increase in overall utility. I think this is a particularly good objection to utilitarianism, which aims to maximise an abstraction called 'utility'.

The 5 ideas with the same theme [global issues about the size of human population]:

4675 The sanctity of life doctrine implies a serious increase of abnormality among the population [Glover]
3783 How can utilitarianism decide the ideal population size? [Glover]
18625 To maximise utility should we double the population, even if life somewhat deteriorates? [Kymlicka]
20677 Since 1500 human population has increased fourteenfold, and consumption far more [Harari]
20688 People 300m tons; domesticated animals 700m tons; larger wild animals 100m tons [Harari]