Negative utilitarianism (NU) is a form of negative consequentialism that can be described as the view that people should minimize the total amount of aggregate suffering, or that they should minimize suffering and then, secondarily, maximize the total amount of happiness. It can be regarded as a version of utilitarianism that gives greater priority to reducing suffering (negative utility or "disutility") than to increasing pleasure (positive utility).For example, : "'Negative utilitarianism' is concerned mainly or entirely with reducing evils rather than with maximizing goods." The example unpleasant experiences is an example based on a hedonistic theory of well-being, according to which pleasant experiences are good for individuals and unpleasant experiences are bad for individuals. But there are other theories of well-being and negative utilitarianism need not adopt a hedonistic theory. This differs from classical utilitarianism, which does not claim that reducing suffering is intrinsically more important than increasing happiness. Both versions of utilitarianism, however, hold that whether an action is morally right or wrong depends solely on whether it promotes or decreases net well-being.: "The whole family of utilitarian theories is captured by the equation: Utilitarianism = Consequentialism (nothing but the values of outcomes matter for the rightness of actions) + Welfarism (nothing but well-being matters for the value of outcomes)." Such well-being consists of both positive and negative aspects, that is, it is the sum of what is good and what is bad for individuals.
Negative utilitarianism would thus differ from other consequentialist views, such as negative prioritarianism or negative egalitarianism. While these other theories would also support minimizing suffering, they would give special weight to reducing the suffering of those who are worse off.
The term "negative utilitarianism" is used by some authors to denote the theory that reducing negative well-being is the only thing that ultimately matters morally. Others distinguish between "strong" and "weak" versions of negative utilitarianism, where strong versions are only concerned with reducing negative well-being, and weak versions say that both positive and negative well-being matter but that negative well-being matters more. says that strong versions of negative utilitarianism "give all weight to disutility" and weak versions "give some weight to positive utility, but more weight to disutility." : "Our point of departure was the firm intuition that unhappiness and suffering have greater weight than happiness. By taking this stand we revealed ourselves as members of the negative utilitarian family." : "NU [negative utilitarianism] comes in several flavours, which I will outline later, but the basic thrust is that an act is morally right if and only if it leads to less suffering than any available alternative. Unlike Classical Utilitarianism, positive experiences such as pleasure or happiness are either given no weight, or at least a lot less weight."
Other versions of negative utilitarianism differ in how much weight they give to negative well-being ('disutility') compared to positive well-being (positive utility), as well as the different conceptions of what well-being (utility) is. For example, negative preference utilitarianism says that the well-being in an outcome depends on frustrated preferences. Negative hedonistic utilitarianism thinks of well-being in terms of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. There are many other variations on how negative utilitarianism can be specified.
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. Smart also presented the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism: that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race would have a duty to do so. Furthermore, every human being would have a moral responsibility to commit suicide, thereby preventing future suffering. Many authors have endorsed the rationale behind these arguments against negative utilitarianism. History The term "negative utilitarianism" was introduced by R. N. Smart in his 1958 reply to Karl Popper's bookK. Popper, "Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1. Routledge. pp. 284–285. The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945.: "Professor Popper has proposed a negative formulation of the utilitarian principle, so that we should replace 'Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number' by 'The least amount of avoidable suffering for all'. He says: 'It adds to the clarity of ethics if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e. if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness'. However, one may reply to negative utilitarianism..." In the book, Popper emphasizes the importance of preventing suffering in public policy.For example, Popper wrote, "I suggest, for this reason, to replace the utilitarian formula 'Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number', or briefly, 'Maximize happiness' by the formula 'The least amount of avoidable suffering for all', or briefly, 'Minimize suffering'. Popper claimed that "there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure... In my opinion human suffering makes a direct moral appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway. A further criticism of the Utilitarian formula "Maximize pleasure" is that it assumes a continuous pleasure-pain scale which allows us to treat degrees of pain as negative degrees of pleasure. But, from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man's pain by another man's pleasure. Instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all..." The ideas in negative utilitarianism have similarities with ancient traditions such as Jainism and Buddhism.: "Negative utilitarianism and Buddhism share the following intuitions: Negative utilitarianism—understood as an umbrella term—models the asymmetry between suffering and happiness and therefore accords with the Buddhist intuition of universal compassion. The Noble Truths of Buddhism accord with the negative utilitarian intuition that (global) suffering cannot be compensated by happiness. Some forms of Buddhism and negative utilitarianism share the intuition that non-existence is a perfect state." : "Negative utilitarianism shares with Buddhism a strong focus on alleviating the suffering of beings." Ancient Greek philosopher Hegesias of Cyrene has been said to be "one of the earliest exponents of NU [Negative Utilitarianism].": "one of the earliest exponents of NU, Hegesias..." In more recent times, ideas similar to negative utilitarianism can be found in the works of 19th century psychologist Edmund Gurney who wrote:
Discussions and writings about negative utilitarianism have become increasingly common, particularly in recent decades. While the term was relatively rare before the late 20th century, it has experienced a significant surge in usage since then. This could be attributed to various factors, such as the rise of movements focused on global suffering and the increasing accessibility of information.
Present figures include David Pearce, a leading advocate of negative utilitarianism who has extensively explored its implications for future technological and ethical advancements. In his work The Hedonistic Imperative, Pearce argues for the use of biotechnology to eradicate suffering in all sentient beings.
Versions Like other kinds of utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism can take many forms depending on what specific claims are taken to constitute the theory. For example, negative preference utilitarianism says that the utility of an outcome depends on frustrated preferences. Negative hedonistic utilitarianism thinks of utility in terms of hedonic mental states such as suffering and unpleasantness. Negative Average Preference Utilitarianism makes the same assumptions on what is good as negative preference utilitarianism, but states that the average number (per individual) of preferences frustrated should be minimized. 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. provides an overview of the many ways in which consequentialism can be varied. Since utilitarianism (and negative utilitarianism) is a kind of consequentialism, much of it applies to utilitarianism and negative utilitarianism as well. Section 1. "Classic Utilitarianism" shows the many distinct and variable claims that make up Classic Utilitarianism. Negative utilitarianism can aim either to optimize the value of the outcome or it can be a satisficing negative utilitarianism, according to which an action ought to be taken if and only if the outcome would be sufficiently valuable (or have sufficiently low disvalue)., states satisficing utilitarianism as follows: "Satisficing utilitarianism An action ought to be done if and only if it would bring about a sufficient level of total well-being." A key way in which negative utilitarian views can differ from one another is with respect to how much weight they give to negative well-being (disutility) compared to positive well-being (positive utility). This is a key area of variation because the key difference between negative utilitarianism and non-negative kinds of utilitarianism is that negative utilitarianism gives more weight to negative well-being.
The weight of evil (disutility)