Acta Analytica

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 31–48 | Cite as

How Lives Measure Up

Original Article

Abstract

The quality of a life is typically understood as a function of the actual goods and bads in it, that is, its actual value. Likewise, the value of a population is typically taken to be a function of the actual value of the lives in it. We introduce an alternative understanding of life quality: adjusted value. A life’s adjusted value is a function of its actual value and its ideal value (the best value it could have had). The concept of adjusted value is useful for at least three reasons. First, it fits our judgments about how well lives are going. Second, it allows us to avoid what we call False Equivalence, an error related to the non-identity problem. Third, when we use adjusted value as an input for calculating the value of a population, we can avoid two puzzles that Derek Parfit calls the “Repugnant Conclusion” and the “Mere Addition Paradox.”

Keywords

Quality of life Value Population ethics Non-identity problem Repugnant conclusion Mere addition paradox Derek Parfit 

References

  1. Benatar, D. (2006). Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Greene, M., & Augello, S. (2011). Everworse: what’s wrong with selecting for disability? Public Affairs Quarterly, 25(2), 131–139.Google Scholar
  3. Lewis, D. (1976). The paradoxes of time travel. American Philosophical Quarterly, 13, 145–152.Google Scholar
  4. McMahan, J. (1996). Cognitive disability, misfortune, and justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 25(1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McMahan, J. (2009). Asymmetries in the morality of causing people to exist. In M. A. Roberts & D. T. Wasserhman (Eds.), Harming future person (pp. 49–68). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Roberts, M. (2003). Is the person-affecting intuition paradoxical? Theory and Decision, 55, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations