If the argument that actions must be for the benefit of the greater good is to be accepted as valid, then why not legalize gang rape? After all, dozens of people would benefit at the expense of one, and would be extrapolated as benefiting millions at the expense a few.
indeed; collectivists are silly.
this is why I like direct democracy - I see pretty girls and just can’t help myself!
Utilitarians have a response ready.
Then utilitarians have never engaged in sexual activity. Besides, how exactly would hey sum up the benefits and sufferings?
With felicifitic calculus. haven’t you ever read Bentham? sheesh.
Happiness =
Intensity
Duration
Likelihood of more happiness
some other thing I can’t remember cus its some unicorn metric
Multiply them all together to get happiness.
Actually, to make a somewhat serious point, if utilitarianism were ever implemented in society of libertarians, it would require that everyone abide by the NAP and such since libertarians claim to value non-aggression more than pleasure or welfare.
In this way, utilitarianism “eats” other values. It just kind of says “the greatest good” without specifying what that is. It doesn’t rule out that libertarian law might be the greatest good.
Conversely, if there were a society that didn’t value individual rights at all, it seems there would be little point in implementing libertarian law.
Where do I enter Keynes’ multiplier?
The keynes multiplier is however many government programs you can set up in america before the market becomes saturated with toxic investments.
In the rape scenario “government programs” becomes “men”, “america” means “fifteen year old girl”, and “saturated” means something very graphic.
I’m sure demand would be very inelastic.
We may need some stimulus to increase that demand inelasticity in case it is unable to get up on its own.
I think that you meant to say “If the argument that actions must be for the benefit of the greater good IN THE EXTREMELY SHORT TERM is to be accepted as valid, then why not legalize gang rape? After all, dozens of people would benefit at the expense of one, and would be extrapolated as benefiting millions at the expense a few.”. In that case, I concur!
In the long run, we’re all dead. 
So integrate happiness over time
On a serious note, the utilitarian case is flawed because you cannot make interpersonal comparisons of value. Therefore, that utilitarian defense that was linked to has been refuted.
On a serious note, the utilitarian case is flawed because you cannot make interpersonal comparisons of value. Therefore, that utilitarian defense that was linked to has been refuted.
Lol! I believe this win belongs to you my good sir!
Well you can’t make clear interpersonal comparisons of utility. It seems that human beings have an intuitive feel for this task though…
So I might not know if I should give a choco bar to A or B but I know that if I have a choice between giving a choco bar to A and killing B I should probably choose the former. I think I posted this exact example above.
Also you could use the fact that you can’t compare interpersonal utility to justify markets, since each individual can only measure their own utility from such and such an action.