Change search
Refine search result
1 - 37 of 37
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Can the Person Affecting Restriction Solve the Problems in Population Ethics?2009In: Harming future persons: ethics, genetics and the nonidentity problem / [ed] Melinda A. Roberts, David T. Wasserman, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2009, p. 289-316Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 2.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Defining Democratic Decision Making2011In: Neither/Nor: Philosophical Essays Dedicated to Erik Carlson on the Occasion of His Fiftieth Birthday / [ed] F. Svensson & R. Sliwinski, Uppsala: Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University , 2011Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Democracy for the 21th century: research challenges2016In: Sociology looks at the twenty-first century: from local universalism to global contextualism. / [ed] Elkana, Y., Randeria, S., & Wittrock, B., Brill Academic Publishers, 2016Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Desert as Fit: An Axiomatic Analysis2006In: The Good, the Right, Life and Death: Essays in Honor of Fred Feldman / [ed] Richard Feldman, Kris McDaniel, Jason R. Raibley and Michael J. Zimmerman, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006, p. 3-17Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Egalitarian Concerns and Population Change2013In: Inequalities in Health: Concepts, Measures, and Ethics / [ed] Nir Eyal, Samia A. Hurst, Ole F. Norheim, and Dan Wikler, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 74-92Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    We usually examine our considered intuitions regarding inequality, including health inequality, by comparing populations of the same size. Likewise, the standard measures of inequality and its badness have been developed on the basis of only such comparisons. Real world policies to mitigate inequalities, however, will most often also affect the size of a population. For example, many health policies are very likely to prevent deaths and affect procreation decisions. Population control policies, such as China’s one-child policy, trivially affect population size. In addition, if we are interested in measuring the development of global inequality during the last thirty years or so, we have to take into account the great population expansion in countries such as India and China. Hence, we need to consider how to extend measures of inequality to different number cases, that is, how to take into account the complication that population numbers are often not equal between the compared alternatives. Moreover, examining different number case is a fruitful way of probing our ideas about egalitarian concerns and will reveal as yet unnoticed complexities and problems in our current conceptualization of the value of equality, or so I’ll argue. 

  • 6.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Egalitarianism and Population Change2009In: Intergenerational Justice / [ed] A. Gosseries & L. Meyer, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 325-348Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 7.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    En motvillig filosof2013In: Vägar till vetenskapen: Sveriges unga akademi om att bli och vara forskare / [ed] C. Nordlund, Santérus Förlag, 2013Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 8.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Etica delle popolazioni e metaetica2012In: Iride, ISSN 1122-7893, no 1, p. 35-44Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper focuses on the relations between population ethics and metaethics. Population ethics gives rise to well-known paradoxes, such as the paradox of mere addition. After presenting a version of this paradox, it is argued that a different way to dismantle it might be by considering it as a way to change our standard view of justification in moral theory. Two possible views are considered: a non-cognitivist approach to justification and to the explanation of inconsistency in morals; Parfit's suggestion that certain paradoxes might be «quarantined» without shaking our confidence in moral theories encapsulating them.

  • 9.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Feldman’s Desert-Adjusted Utilitarianism and Population Ethics2003In: Utilitas, ISSN 0953-8208, E-ISSN 1741-6183, Vol. 15, no 2, p. 225-236Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Future Generations, Power, and Democracy2011In: Perspectives: Journal Réseau français des instituts d’études avancées, no 4Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 11.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    “Life Extension versus Replacement”2011In: Enhancing Human Capacities / [ed] Ruud ter Meulen, Julian Savulescu, Guy Kahane, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, p. 368-385Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    It seems to be a widespread opinion that increasing the length of existing happy lives is better than creating new happy lives and that it may be better even when the total welfare is lower in the outcome with extended lives. The chapter discusses two interesting suggestions that seem to support this idea. The first is critical level utilitarianism (CLU) and the other is view comparativism. The chapter describes the pure case of life extension versus life replacement and then presents some different views about the value of life extension, indicating some of the arguments in favor and against life extension fail. Then, it turns to the implications of critical level utilitarianism and comparativism in regards to life extension versus replacement, the main topic of this chapter. A case is presented to explain that there is a conflict between intuitions regarding life extension and comparativism.

  • 12.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Life Extension versus Replacement2012In: Intergenerational Justice / [ed] L. H. Meyer, Ashgate, 2012, 2Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 13.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Life Extension versus Replacement2008In: Journal of Applied Philosophy, ISSN 0264-3758, E-ISSN 1468-5930, Vol. 25, no 3, p. 211-227Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    It seems to be a widespread opinion that increasing the length of existing happy lives is better than creating new happy lives although the total welfare is the same in both cases, and that it may be better even when the total welfare is lower in the outcome with extended lives. I shall discuss two interesting suggestions that seem to support this idea, or so it has been argued. Firstly, the idea there is a positive level of well-being above which a life has to reach to have positive contributive value to a population, so-called Critical Level Utilitarianism. Secondly, the view that it makes an outcome worse if people are worse off than they otherwise could have been, a view I call Comparativism. I shall show that although these theories do capture some of our intuitions about the value of longevity, they contradict others, and they have a number of counterintuitive implications in other cases that we ultimately have to reject them.

  • 14.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Measuring and distributing influence2008In: CERSES News: La lettre du Centre de Recherche Sens, Ethique, Vol. 1, no 1Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 15.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy. Praktisk filosofi.
    Meritarian Axiologies and Distributive Justice2007In: Hommage à Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz, 2007Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Standard welfarist axiologies do not care who is given what share of the good. For example, giving Wlodek two apples and Ewa three is just as good as giving Wlodek three and Ewa two, or giving Wlodek five and Ewa zero. A common objection to such theories is that they are insensitive to matters of distributive justice. To meet this objection, one can adjust the axiology to take distributive concerns into account. One possibility is to turn to what I will call Meritarian axiologies. According to such theories, individuals can have a claim to, deserve, or merit, a certain level of wellbeing depending on their merit level, and the value of an outcome is determined not only by people’s wellbeing but also by their merit level.

  • 16.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    One More Axiological Impossibility Theorem2009In: Logic, ethics, and all that jazz: essays in honour of Jordan Howard Sobel / [ed] Lars-Göran Johansson, Jan Österberg and Rysiek Sliwinski, Uppsala: Uppsala University, Department of Philosophy , 2009, p. 23-37Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Politisk och ekonomisk demokrati2012In: Tillsammans: en fungerande ekonomisk demokrati / [ed] B. Rothstein, Stockholm: SNS förlag, 2012, p. 71-95Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 18.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy. Institute for Futures Studies, Sweden.
    Population Ethics and Imprecision2016In: Theoria, ISSN 0040-5825, E-ISSN 1755-2567, Vol. 82, no 2, p. 166-181Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Recently, in his Rolf Schock Prize Lecture, Derek Parfit has suggested a novel way of avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion by introducing what he calls “imprecision” in value comparisons.  He suggests that in a range of important cases, populations of different sizes are only imprecisely comparable. Parfit suggests that this feature of value comparisons opens up a way of avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other counterintuitive conclusions, and thus solves one of the major challenges in ethics. In this paper, I shall try to clarify Parfit’s proposal and evaluate whether it will help us with the paradoxes in population ethics.

  • 19.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Superiority in Value2005In: Recent Work on Intrinsic Value / [ed] Michael Zimmerman and Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen, Springer-Verlag New York, 2005, p. 291-304Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 20.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Superiority in Value2005In: Philosophical Studies, ISSN 0031-8116, E-ISSN 1573-0883, Vol. 17, no 2, p. 127-114Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 21.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy. Institute for Futures Studies, Sweden.
    The Affirmative Answer to the Existential Question and the Person Affecting Restriction2015In: Weighing and reasoning: themes from the philosophy of John Broome / [ed] Iwao Hirose, Andrew Reisner, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The person affecting restriction states that one outcome can only be better than another if it is better for someone. The existential question concerns whether existence can be better or worse for a person than non-existence, the personal value of existence. According to the affirmative answer, existence can be better or worse than non-existence for a person. This chapter discusses the implications of the restriction and the affirmative answer to the existential question for population ethics, the value of future generations, and especially for the possibility of avoiding the so-called repugnant conclusion, an undesirable implication of classical utilitarianism.

  • 22.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory2005In: Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations I / [ed] Folke Tersman, Stockholm: Filosofiska inst, Stockholms universitet , 2005Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 23.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy. Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, Uppsala, Sweden; L'institut d'études avancées, Paris, France.
    The Impossibility of a Satisfactory Population Ethics2011In: Descriptive and Normative Approaches to Human Behavior / [ed] Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N. ; Perry, Lacey, Singapore: World Scientific, 2011, p. 1-26Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 24.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Paradoxes of Future Generations and Normative Theory2004In: The Repugnant Conclusion / [ed] Jesper Ryberg, Torbjörn Tännsjö, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, p. 201-218Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 25.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Person Affecting Restriction, Comparativism, and the Moral Status of Potential People2003In: Ethical Perspectives, ISSN 1370-0049, E-ISSN 1783-1431, no 3-4, p. 185-195Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 26.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Repugnant Conclusion2013In: International Encyclopaedia of Ethics / [ed] Hugh LaFollette, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, p. 4560-4563Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Derek Parfit originally formulated the Repugnant Conclusion as follows: “For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living” (1984: 388).

  • 27.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Very Repugnant Conclusion2003In: Logic, Law, Morality / [ed] Krister Segerberg, Rysiek Sliwinski, Uppsala: Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University , 2003, p. 29-44Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 28.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Vem bör ha rösträtt?: Det demokratiska avgränsningsproblemet2005In: Tidskrift för politisk filosofi, ISSN 1402-2710, Vol. 2, p. 47-63Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 29.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Vår moral och framtida generationer2012Other (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 30.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Rabinowicz, Wlodek
    Lunds universitet.
    Better to Be than not to Be?2010In: The Benefit of Broad Horizons: intellectual and institutional preconditions for a global social science : festschrift for Björn Wittrock on the occasion of his 65th birthday / [ed] Hans Joas and Barbro Klein, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2010, p. 399-414Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 31.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Rabinowicz, Wlodek
    Better to be than not to be?2012In: Discusiones Filosóficas, ISSN 0124-6127, Vol. 13, no 21, p. 65-85Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Can it be better (or worse) for me to exist than not to exist? Several philosophers have denied this, on the ground that if it could, then if I didn't exist, this would have been worse (better) for me, which is absurd. In our paper we argue that these philosophers are mistaken: Claims about the comparative value or disvalue of existence need not imply any absurdities. Such claims, which are of central importance for population ethics and for the status of the so-called Person-Affecting Restriction, can be rationalized if one adheres to the so-called fitting-attitudes analysis of value.

  • 32.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Rabinowicz, Wlodek
    Lunds universitet.
    Millian Superiorities2005In: Utilitas, ISSN 0953-8208, E-ISSN 1741-6183, Vol. 17, no 2, p. 127-146Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 33.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Rabinowicz, Wlodek
    Lunds Universitet.
    The Value of Existence2015In: Oxford Handbook of Value Theory / [ed] I. Hirose and J. Olson, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 424-444Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 34.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Rabinowicz, Wlodek
    Lunds universitet.
    Value and Unacceptable Risk: Temkin’s Worries about Continuity Reconsidered2005In: Economics and Philosophy, ISSN 0266-2671, E-ISSN 1474-0028, Vol. 21, no 2, p. 177-197Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 35.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Rabinowicz, Wlodek
    Lunds universitet.
    Value Superiority2015In: Oxford Handbook of Value Theory / [ed] I. Hirose and J. Olson, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 225-248Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 36.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy. Institute for Futures Studies, Sweden.
    Ryberg, Jesper
    Tännsjö, Torbjörn
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Repugnant Conclusion2016In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 1095-5054, E-ISSN 1095-5054Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In Derek Parfit's original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is characterized as follows: “For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living” (Parfit 1984). The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as “Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?” and “Is there a moral obligation to have children?” The main problem has been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives, and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics.

  • 37.
    Arrhenius, Gustaf
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Ryberg, Jesper
    Tännsjö, Torbjörn
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Repugnant Conclusion2010In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 1095-5054, E-ISSN 1095-5054Article in journal (Refereed)
1 - 37 of 37
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf