<From Section 1>"A straightforward way of capturing the No-Difference View is total utilitarianism according to which the best outcome is the one in which there

<From Section 1>"A straightforward way of capturing the No-Difference View is total utilitarianism according to which the best outcome is the one in which there would be the greatest quantity of whatever makes life worth living (Parfit 1984 p. 387). However, this view implies that any loss in the quality of lives in a population can be compensated for by a sufficient gain in the quantity of a population" Well yes, but while 'total utility' may be a relevant measure for a population, populations in the aggregate do not have conscious experience. Therefore 'total utility' is irrelevant for the individual. It's a very poor measure of the 'quality' of a society. A much better (and more intuitively appealing) measure incorporates 'total utility' but divides it by population to get average utility. If we take this as our guiding measure then we aren't forced to reach The Repugnant Conclusion. But on second thought, this also presents a problem. Because then we could posit a world in which most of the population lives in misery but a small percentage lives wonderful, fulfilling 'maximum utility' lives. Average utility as I've described it would favor some of these these worlds - given a large enough population - over ones in which there's a more even distribution of utility. Therefore let's take a page from economics and incorporate a GINI Coefficient measure of utility into our consideration of an ideal world. This should actually eliminate the threat of a Repugnant Conclusion.