« Central Banking is too Important to be De-Politicized; on Lev Menand’s The Fed Unbound | Main | A response to some of my critics (on MacAskill, What we Owe to the Future, pt 5); Population Ethics reconsidered. »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Peter McLaughlin

It's worth noting that the kind of population ethics MacAskill would be most familiar with (i.e., the population ethics taught in analytic philosophy departments in places like Oxford and Cambridge) is typically taught without drawing any actual connection with the topic of *population*, or with the overlapping histories of Malthusianism, social Darwinism, and eugenics. See, for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia's definition on its article on the Repugnant Conclusion: population ethics studies 'the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives, and their identities may vary.' Everything is so abstractly defined and abstractly discussed; only the name of the discipline, 'population ethics', hints at a connection with questions about population.

But, of course, you are correct that these abstract reflections about the ethics of 'states of affairs' have (historically) emerged from thinking about concrete population issues, and are (still today) deeply linked with these kinds of issues in not-too-savoury ways. My point is just that MacAskill may never have thought about it in these terms, because of the way population ethics is taught nowadays.

This, of course, has to do with Parfit's immense influence: I think you're not sufficiently harsh on MacAskill's historical claim that Parfit 'inaugurated' population ethics, but it's true that as far as MacAskill's philosophy is concerned, Parfit *might as well* have invented population ethics. As you mention, Parfit had his own reasons to try to 'screen off' the influence of religious ethics on his work; separately but for similar reasons, he also tried to abstract away from the neo-Malthusianism undertones of the questions he was asking. And so you get things like a draft explicitly entitled 'Overpopulation' being turned into a journal article and then book section about the (much more abstract) topic of 'Future Generations'.

But whatever Parfit's intentions, one of the consequences of this is that longtermism and 'existential risk' studies have been left with a rather unhealthy concern with ideas about population. Superficially, this can be seen in the recently-unveiled, utterly disgusting email Nick Bostrom wrote in the 1990s about race and IQ; but there's deeper connections to be drawn, too (some of which I drew in my MPhil dissertation).


"uncertainty cuts both ways" - is that another way of saying "yeah, but you can't prove it *won't*"?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad