Talk:Negative utilitarianism

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Effective Altruism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Utilitarianism#Classical utlitarianism|classical utilitarianism]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Appropriateness of certain citations

Some of the citations in this article are to unpublished primary sources such as blogs. These include all of those attributed to the Foundational Research Institute, Brian Tomasik, socrethics.com, Toby Ord's blog, David Pearce's website (hedweb.com), and the "Negative Utilitarian FAQ". Are they appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Due to the weight given to these sources, I have added the "undue weight" tag. GojiBarry (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Benevolent world exploder" section is missing one obvious response

One of the most obvious responses to the benevolent world exploder scenario is that of simply "biting the bullet" and agreeing that destroying the world would be the appropriate course of action if it could be achieved painlessly and in an instant. I'm sure a few authors have taken that positions and should be listed here. The "Life could evolve again in a worse way" argument kind of goes in that direction by shifting the question to whether destroying all possibility of life instead of just Earth wouldn't be more appropriate (and thereby implicitly agreeing with the general idea of the world exploder), but it's not explicitly spelled out. --92.209.35.171 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I personally don't know of any academic sources that have this viewpoint, but I've heard that they're called efilists/omnicidists on some parts of the web. Maybe digging through those names someone can find something relevant? Paradox Marvin (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox Marvin, this article contains a historical overview of omnicidists:

https://theconversation.com/solve-suffering-by-blowing-up-the-universe-the-dubious-philosophy-of-human-extinction-149331

157.35.45.237 (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]