Repugnant Conclusion

The "Repugnant Conclusion" is a theoretical consequence in population ethics whereby, within certain aggregative moral frameworks, a very large population with barely positive welfare is considered morally preferable to a smaller population with significantly higher welfare, thereby challenging intuitive judgments about the value of well-being and population size.

35

Publications

1.6K

Citations

63

Authors

51

Institutions

Publications per year

2017–2026

9

Authors

63

  1. TT
    Torbjörn Tännsjö

    Stockholm University, Sweden

    3 publications · 267 citations

    3

    h-index

  2. WB
    Walter Bossert

    Université de Montréal, Canada

    3 publications · 79 citations

    3

    h-index

  3. JE
    Johan E. Gustafsson

    University of York, United Kingdom

    2 publications · 131 citations

    2

    h-index

  4. YN
    Yew‐Kwang Ng

    Monash University, Australia

    2 publications · 317 citations

    2

    h-index

  5. MF
    Marc Fleurbaey

    Princeton University, United States

    2 publications · 110 citations

    2

    h-index

1–5 of 63

Venues

  1. Utilitas

    7 publications · 401 citations

    7

    h-index

  2. Ethics

    5 publications · 141 citations

    5

    h-index

  3. Economics and Philosophy

    4 publications · 323 citations

    4

    h-index

  4. Theoria

    3 publications · 189 citations

    3

    h-index

  5. Mind

    2 publications · 143 citations

    2

    h-index

1–5