The harm of death

Abstract

Negative utilitarianism is commonly criticized for absurdly implying that death, even by murder, is good because it reduces suffering. This criticism is flawed. Death, including the dying process, is rarely harm-free and often extremely painful; murder rarely makes it less so. While death is inevitable, hastening it does not guarantee less harm. Attempts to end life can backfire, causing more suffering than a long, even very bad, life, or resulting in permanent disability. Furthermore, negative utilitarianism considers all individuals. Humans live interdependently, contributing to societal function, progress, and the reduction of suffering. Killing people undermines this. Human communities, including friends and families, suffer from the loss of individuals, a harm amplified by murder. The societal consequences of murder, including chaos, violence, and disrespect for sentience, would increase suffering. Negative utilitarianism aims to reduce suffering and improve human civilization, not end existence. Killing sentient beings contradicts this goal. – AI-generated abstract.