Makes sense to compare different populations

If instead we claimed that A and B were neither better nor worse than each other, this would undermine Parfit’s argument since one could then argue against his notion of population size being linked with overall well-being: if all people were equally happy regardless of population size then it hardly matters whether A is larger than B — meaning any discussion about which world is preferable becomes largely meaningless. Additionally, if this view is correct it could potentially lead us to conclude that attempting to optimize population size through methods such as birth control or immigration policies might be misguided in certain cases; indeed, one might even go so far as to suggest that seeking out ways for everyone in a given society—regardless of how many there are in total—to experience maximum levels of happiness is much more important than trying to reduce numbers itself. Ultimately then while Parfit certainly raises many interesting points when discussing the relationship between population size and well-being, we must also consider counter arguments which challenge traditional views by pointing out alternative ways in which societies can strive towards lasting peace and prosperity – rather than relying solely on what has been done before

Sample Solution

Parfit’s argument depends on the assumption that it makes sense to compare different populations and say that some are better than others – a premise which can be seen as problematic due to the subjective nature of attempts at quantifying ‘better’ (i.e. what criteria should be used? Is physical/mental health more important than emotional stability or vice versa?) and because such comparisons rely heavily on our ability to identify/value measurable differences between persons which may not always exist.