Argument Against Parfit

In this essay, I will show that Derek Parfit is wrong to think that without perfectionism we cannot avoid the repugnant conclusion. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Parfit’s argument on the repugnant conclusion and the way perfectionism helps us avoid it. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Parfit’s argument is that perfectionism does provide a full means of avoiding the repugnant conclusion. However, what perfectionism values is the total sum of happiness in a population. Thus, I argue that although perfectionism does give value to happy lives, it does not show the value that we should give to lives that are not worth living.

Parfit’s repugnant conclusion looks at blocks representing a certain group of people, where the width of the box represents the number of people and height represents happiness. In the diagram, population B is better than population A and population C is better than B, until population Z is reached. Population Z is where there are many people whose lives are at a very low level. The repugnant conclusion states that compared with the existence of many people who would all have some high quality of life, there is a larger population whose existence would be better, even though their lives are barley worth living. …show more content…
This is because the lives in B are better than A and the lives in B are less good than A but there are twice as many people in B that are living. So, population B is better than A, C is better than B and C is better than A as there is a greater total happiness. Therefore, it would make sense for the best things in life to be enjoyed by a larger number of people rather than for there to be a smaller