alos this doesn't seem like an averagism position, should be an antanatalist. averagism says adding Nadia at 70 to a population averaging 55 would improve things, but I said it makes them worse.
It seems that answering "K+ is better" at The same person, a life worth living. and answering "Yes" at Now do it again. And again. is seen as consistent with the lexical or critical value view, why? A lexical view would most definitely not say that K+ is better than K, while only a critical value that's below 7 would consider K+ to be better. But then a critical value would cause the answer to the second problem to flip at some point.
It's easy to be a PAV once you understand that you just need to bite the bullets! Pretty sure you can get down to 3 if you accept trasitivity of > in 7.
mdickens.me/pop-ethics/#a=yrllllryll-l-y-y-a-&q=r
alos this doesn't seem like an averagism position, should be an antanatalist. averagism says adding Nadia at 70 to a population averaging 55 would improve things, but I said it makes them worse.