The "only consider people in all options we're considering" response gets worse. If it's meant to respond to the claims that we should kill existing people on average utilitarianism, then that means we no longer consider people to "exist" once they're dead. So whenever one of our options is to kill someone, we should not consider that person in our moral calculus. In other words, this view implies that murder is never wrong!
There seems to be a sort of isomorphism between how one chooses actions under TU vs AU and how one favors existence theories under SIA vs SSA. In TU and SIA, we are looking for higher totals (whether more utility or more people), and in AU and SSA we are looking for higher proportions (whether populations with a higher proportion of utility or "me-ness"). It is as if we have the analogy, "Utility is to TU/AU as Self is to SIA/SSA". Apologies if this seems obvious and trivial, as I have only recently become interested in "autistic philosophy"
AU is valuable from the perspective of the individual and which society they choose to live in (say, the immigrant). All else equal, they would prefer societies with the highest AU.
TU is valuable from the perspective of the individual who cares about the total welfare of a society (say, the social planner). All else equal, they would prefer greater TU over less.
There is no absolute perspective where AU or TU should be prioritized, but they both have value depending on the relative perspective of the individual. A "view from nowhere" where we can make absolute claims of the priority of AU or TU are nonsense.
The repugnant conclusion arises from confusing these different relative values of AU and TU; it tries to assert their values as absolute when really they are just relative.
The "only consider people in all options we're considering" response gets worse. If it's meant to respond to the claims that we should kill existing people on average utilitarianism, then that means we no longer consider people to "exist" once they're dead. So whenever one of our options is to kill someone, we should not consider that person in our moral calculus. In other words, this view implies that murder is never wrong!
I agree, I think it's an irredeemably implausible view.
There seems to be a sort of isomorphism between how one chooses actions under TU vs AU and how one favors existence theories under SIA vs SSA. In TU and SIA, we are looking for higher totals (whether more utility or more people), and in AU and SSA we are looking for higher proportions (whether populations with a higher proportion of utility or "me-ness"). It is as if we have the analogy, "Utility is to TU/AU as Self is to SIA/SSA". Apologies if this seems obvious and trivial, as I have only recently become interested in "autistic philosophy"
We'll see if I have the energy to respond, but I look forward to the next part.
AU is valuable from the perspective of the individual and which society they choose to live in (say, the immigrant). All else equal, they would prefer societies with the highest AU.
TU is valuable from the perspective of the individual who cares about the total welfare of a society (say, the social planner). All else equal, they would prefer greater TU over less.
There is no absolute perspective where AU or TU should be prioritized, but they both have value depending on the relative perspective of the individual. A "view from nowhere" where we can make absolute claims of the priority of AU or TU are nonsense.
The repugnant conclusion arises from confusing these different relative values of AU and TU; it tries to assert their values as absolute when really they are just relative.