Appendices - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 154

nor better than B for them. However, B is better than A for the y-people.
Consequently, B is better than A according to the second clause of the
Person Affecting Restriction. The same reasoning yields that C is better
than B, and A is better than C. But if B is better than A, and C is better
than B, then transitivity yields that C is better than A. Consequently,
A is both better and worse than C, which cannot be true.
It should be clear by now that the wide person-affecting restriction
avoids that problem. According to the wide person affecting restric-
tion, if the choice is between A, B and C, each outcome is equally good.
Outcome A is as good for the A people as B is for the B people, and as C
is for the C people.
Broome (2004, p. 146) presents the choice between three outcomes,
A, B and C each consisting of the same individuals with the same posi-
tive amount of welfare, except for one individual, whose condition
differs in each outcome. In outcome A, this individual does not exist, in
outcome B this individual has a positive welfare level, and in outcome C
this individual has a higher positive welfare level.
A = (1, 1, …1, Ω)
B = (1, 1, … 1, 1)
C = (1, 1, …1, 2)
According to Broome, the person-affecting restriction in conjunction
with the assumption that existence cannot be a benefit or harm for an
individual, implies that B is equally as good as A. C is also equally as
good as A. However, this would imply that B is equally as good as C.
This however seems not the case. This, according to Broome violates
transitivity.
Bradley (2013, p. 41) builds on that argument and presents a very similar
choice situation between three outcomes, let's call them A, B and C. In
outcome A individual x would have a positive welfare level of 10, in
outcome B x would have a neutral welfare level of 0 and in outcome C x
would not exist.
(A) x = + 10
(B) x = 0
(C) x = Ω
Since, according to the prior existence view, both A and B are equally
as good as C, it should follow, according to Bradley that A is equally as
good as B. This, however, seems not to be the case when A and B are