Utilitarianism is impossible to even formulate precisely in a logically coherent way. (Almost certain.)
Even if some coherent formulation of utilitarianism can be found, applying it in practice requires belief in fictional metaphysical entities. (Absolutely certain.)
Finally, as a practical philosophy, utilitarianism is pernicious because it represents exactly the sort of quasi-rational thinking that is apt to mislead otherwise very smart people into terrible folly. (Absolutely certain.)
I have in mind primarily the way “utility” is reified, especially in arguments that assume that cross-personal utility comparisons are meaningful. The subsequent leap over the is-ought problem typically also qualifies.
Downvoted for agreement. This might make a good topic for a top-level posting.
Adding or averaging utilities of different people seems like adding apples and oranges to me. But be aware that at least one top-flight economist might disagree. John Harsanyi in this classic pdf.pdf).
Finally, as a practical philosophy, utilitarianism is pernicious because it represents exactly the sort of quasi-rational thinking that is apt to mislead otherwise very smart people into terrible folly. (Absolutely certain.)
Downvoted for this. (I’ll not nitpick on ‘absolutely certain’ and I may have voted on the other parts differently if I thought they were important.)
Utilitarianism is impossible to even formulate precisely in a logically coherent way. (Almost certain.)
Even if some coherent formulation of utilitarianism can be found, applying it in practice requires belief in fictional metaphysical entities. (Absolutely certain.)
Finally, as a practical philosophy, utilitarianism is pernicious because it represents exactly the sort of quasi-rational thinking that is apt to mislead otherwise very smart people into terrible folly. (Absolutely certain.)
What are the fictional metaphysical entities?
I have in mind primarily the way “utility” is reified, especially in arguments that assume that cross-personal utility comparisons are meaningful. The subsequent leap over the is-ought problem typically also qualifies.
Downvoted for agreement. This might make a good topic for a top-level posting.
Adding or averaging utilities of different people seems like adding apples and oranges to me. But be aware that at least one top-flight economist might disagree. John Harsanyi in this classic pdf.pdf).
I think you mean: http://darp.lse.ac.uk/papersdb/Harsanyi_(JPolE_55).pdf.pdf)
The markdown eats parentheses in an URL—you have to escape it with a backslash: \).
The link is broken—I assume you mean this paper? (URLs with parentheses get messed up due to the odd markup syntax here.)
Downvoted for this. (I’ll not nitpick on ‘absolutely certain’ and I may have voted on the other parts differently if I thought they were important.)
Agree with 1 and 3, not sure exactly what you mean with 2.