Against Large Number Scepticism

According to large number scepticism, intuitions about the Repugnant Conclusion and related problems in normative ethics shouldn’t be trusted because we can’t adequately grasp the very large numbers involved. This chapter argues that the case for large number scepticism is unconvincing. I respond to arguments for large number scepticism offered by John Broome and Michael Huemer, as well as more empirically grounded arguments due to Joshua Greene and Adam Cureton. I consider what we can learn from evidence of scope insensitivity in contingent valuation, people’s diminishing sensitivity to increasing numbers of lives lost or saved, well-established limitations of the mind/brain’s core number systems, and evidence that people are more moved by single victims than by groups. In each case, I argue that the case for large number scepticism should not convince us.