As I wrote in my reply to buybuydandavis this doesn’t require utilitarianism, just consequentialism and valuing the wellbeing of others.
But why do you believe that “this is the domain where we are least sure what utilitarianism should say”? The bit of utilitarianism that I think is most dodgy is what counts as personal utility. Summing it up over all people over all time seems the simple part.
Requiring an equally weighted sum would just be utilitarianism, so I don’t mean that. If you value the wellbeing of others a trivially small amount then this approach concludes it’s fine for you just to spend your money on yourself. But if you value others much at all then giving someone an extra year of life for $50 (on average) is pretty hard to argue with.
Why are we trying to analyze this in terms of utilitarianism given that this is the domain where we are least sure what utilitarianism should say?
As I wrote in my reply to buybuydandavis this doesn’t require utilitarianism, just consequentialism and valuing the wellbeing of others.
But why do you believe that “this is the domain where we are least sure what utilitarianism should say”? The bit of utilitarianism that I think is most dodgy is what counts as personal utility. Summing it up over all people over all time seems the simple part.
And that’s an equally weighted sum?
Until you’ve specified how “well being” is weighted in the sum, you haven’t said much. I could weight it overwhelmingly on me.
Requiring an equally weighted sum would just be utilitarianism, so I don’t mean that. If you value the wellbeing of others a trivially small amount then this approach concludes it’s fine for you just to spend your money on yourself. But if you value others much at all then giving someone an extra year of life for $50 (on average) is pretty hard to argue with.