those sentences only make semantic sense if “we” actually refers to “utilitarians”
Or if 1) “should” refers to true/informed preferences rather than currently endorsed preferences and 2) your true/informed preferences would be utilitarian. That distinction seems to be going out of fashion, though.
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utility.
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utilitarian utility, which is really the crux of the debate.
The word utilitarian is thrown around a lot here without clearly defining what is meant by it but I would guess that most of the non-utilitarians (like myself) here take issue primarily with the agent neutrality / universality and utility aggregation (whether averaging, summing or weighted summing) aspects commonly implied by utilitarianism as an ethical system rather than with the general idea of maximizing utility (however defined).
How is (2) not a definition of a utilitarian?
A utilitarian, in common usage, is someone who currently endorses utilitarianism.
(I share Steven’s desire to see the informed/currently-endorsed distinction used more consistently.)
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utility.
A utilitarian would endorse a non-utilitarian value system if doing so maximized utilitarian utility, which is really the crux of the debate.
The word utilitarian is thrown around a lot here without clearly defining what is meant by it but I would guess that most of the non-utilitarians (like myself) here take issue primarily with the agent neutrality / universality and utility aggregation (whether averaging, summing or weighted summing) aspects commonly implied by utilitarianism as an ethical system rather than with the general idea of maximizing utility (however defined).
Another crucial terminological distinction. Thanks.