The world destruction argument

Abstract

The world destruction argument is a common objection to negative utilitarianism, asserting that it implies that someone could kill everyone or destroy the world if it would lead to less suffering. However, this argument also applies to traditional utilitarianism, as it implies that someone could kill everyone and replace them with beings who experience greater well-being. Negative utilitarianism’s implications regarding killing everyone are not necessarily more objectionable than those of traditional utilitarianism, especially considering the extent of suffering in the world and the possibility that killing everyone could lead to less suffering in the future. This paper thus argues that negative utilitarianism is not inferior to traditional utilitarianism in this regard. – AI-generated abstract.