The term "negative utilitarianism" was introduced by R. Ninian Smart in 1958 in his reply to Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies.
The term "negative utilitarianism" was introduced by R. N. Smart in his 1958 reply to Karl Popper's book[9] The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945.
[12] Ancient Greek philosopher Hegesias of Cyrene has been said to be "one of the earliest exponents of NU [Negative Utilitarianism].
This could be attributed to various factors, such as the rise of movements focused on global suffering and the increasing accessibility of information.
[15] Present figures include David Pearce, a leading advocate of negative utilitarianism who has extensively explored its implications for future technological and ethical advancements.
Negative hedonistic utilitarianism thinks of utility in terms of hedonic mental states such as suffering and unpleasantness.
Versions of (negative) utilitarianism can also differ based on whether the actual or expected consequences matter, and whether the aim is stated in terms of the average outcome among individuals or the total net utility (or lack of disutility) among them.
[23] "Lexical threshold" negative utilitarianism says that there is some disutility, for instance some extreme suffering, such that no positive utility can counterbalance it.
[25] Thomas Metzinger proposes the "principle of negative utilitarianism", which is the broad idea that suffering should be minimized when possible.
[28] Tranquilist axiology, closely related to negative utilitarianism, states that "an individual experiential moment is as good as it can be for her if and only if she has no craving for change.
Since there are many ways to reduce suffering which do not infringe on other value systems, it makes sense for negative utilitarians to focus on these options.
[37] Several philosophers have argued that to try to destroy the world (or to kill many people) would be counterproductive from a negative utilitarian perspective.
One such argument is provided by David Pearce, who says that "planning and implementing the extinction of all sentient life couldn't be undertaken painlessly.
"[38] Instead, Pearce advocates the use of biotechnology to phase out the biology of suffering throughout the living world, and he says that "life-long happiness can be genetically pre-programmed.
"[6] Some replies to the benevolent world-exploder argument take the form that even if the world were destroyed, that would or might be bad from a negative utilitarian perspective.
This is on the supposition, held by some experts, that the evolution of higher forms of life on earth depended on a lot of lucky accidents.
But only (trans)humans – or our potential superintelligent successors – are technically capable of phasing out the cruelties of the rest of the living world on Earth.
And only (trans)humans – or rather our potential superintelligent successors – are technically capable of assuming stewardship of our entire Hubble volume.
Erich Kadlec defends negative utilitarianism and addresses the benevolent world-exploder argument (partially) as follows: "[R. N. Smart] also dispenses with the generally known fact that all people (with a few exceptions in extreme situations) like to live and would consider being killed not a benefit but as the greatest evil done to them.
[48] A part of Clark Wolf's response to the benevolent world-exploder objection is that negative utilitarianism can be combined with a theory of rights.
Since it is clear that policy makers have no right to kill off the miserable and destitute, this response gains support from our moral intuitions.
[54][55][56] Other critical views of negative utilitarianism are provided by Thaddeus Metz,[57] Christopher Belshaw,[58] and Ingmar Persson.
[62] In book format, Jonathan Leighton has defended a variation of negative utilitarianism he terms "xNU+", with the "x" placing particular emphasis on the prevention of extreme suffering, and the "+" accommodating deep human intuitions, including the desire to exist and to thrive.