Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Negative utilitarianism, as Smart argued, entails that painlessly exterminating all sentient life is obligatory, since it eliminates all future suffering.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Negative utilitarianism can distinguish between preventing future suffering and eliminating existing beings' positive experiences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The mere capacity to suffer doesn't override the value of existence; pleasure and meaning provide independent reasons against extinction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Smart's reductio may target an extreme formulation, not negative utilitarianism properly constrained by additional principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If reducing suffering is the only intrinsic good, then any world with less suffering is better, regardless of other losses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Future sentient beings will inevitably experience suffering; extinction eliminates this certainty of future harm.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A theory that produces absurd conclusions (mandatory extinction) reveals a flaw in its foundational axioms about value.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.