  Granting the wrongness of the last man’s act, is a “new ethic” really required? Preference utilitarianism has been considered as a “traditional” ethic capable of condemning the last man. (Cf. Elliot 1980, 20 and 23; and Carter 2004, 51–52 for a more limited condemnation along preference utilitarian grounds.) Where there is an overwhelming preference for preservation of the world beyond the death of the last man, and its destruction would thus harm those having such a preference, the Freedom Principle would already appear to prohibit such an act (assuming the aggregated harm outweighs any benefit in the satisfaction of contrary preferences). But notice that condemnation, on this view, is highly contingent, depending on people’s preferences (condemnation is justified only if preferences conflict with destruction). Since the condemnation is thought to be warranted with “no ifs and buts”, yet this “traditional” response offers the correct judgement only in special circumstances, for Sylvan, it counts as “too parochial” (Routley 1973, 20). (Cf. Lamb 2018, 532–3 for a similar point.)