Biogerontology researchers argue that extending human healthspan represents a fundamental ethical obligation rather than merely a beneficial outcome. Their deontological framework grounds longevity research in core principles of autonomy, self-ownership, and life's intrinsic value, moving beyond traditional consequentialist cost-benefit analyses that focus on overpopulation or resource allocation concerns. This philosophical pivot addresses three major objection categories: appeals to natural aging processes, societal resource distribution fears, and individual concerns about existential meaning in extended lifespans. The authors systematically counter each critique while identifying overlooked advantages of longevity research, including its role as a technological catalyst comparable to space exploration programs. Most significantly, they propose inverting the current moral framework entirely. Rather than requiring longevity advocates to justify life extension research, they argue the burden should shift to critics who must explain why society should accept preventable age-related suffering and death. This represents a fundamental reframing from viewing aging intervention as optional enhancement to recognizing it as ethical necessity. The approach could reshape how funding agencies, policymakers, and researchers approach aging science by establishing life preservation as the default moral position, potentially accelerating research timelines and resource allocation in ways purely utilitarian arguments have failed to achieve.