The Repugnant Conclusion

Thus, if one believes the Repugnant Conclusion to be false or morally unsound, they should instead put forth their own reasons as to why this might be the case – perhaps through making appeals to our intuitions about what constitutes a desirable world or offering alternative definitions of well-being or population size which could help avoid its implications. Additionally, one could also attempt to make the Repugnant Conclusion seem less repugnant by creating thought experiments which illustrate hypothetical scenarios where accepting it would lead us to preferable outcomes for everyone involved; for example, if there were no other way for a certain number of people (or creatures) suffering from extreme poverty/illness/etc.to escape their condition than by having many more others live lives barely worth living — then perhaps sacrificing a few in order spare many might actually constitute an act of compassion rather than brutality. Ultimately then while Parfit’s work has certainly shown us how difficult it can be reconcile our ethical beliefs with each other when dealing with issues such as population size and wellbeing – he has not necessarily proven that any particular position is correct. Rather all that his arguments demonstrate is how important philosophical debates surrounding these topics remain – and why they should always involve careful reflection on both sides before arriving at any conclusions

Sample Solution

If we are unable to find an acceptable solution to the Repugnant Conclusion paradox, it does not necessarily mean that we should simply accept its conclusion. While some may argue that it is “obvious” that such a conclusion is inherently repugnant and therefore true by default, this ignores the fact that there can be philosophical disagreements even on matters of basic morality—and so it would be wrong to assume any particular outcome without carefully examining the argument in question.