In case there's a shade of seriousness to that, I'll rebut.Originally Posted by eugmac
1) I obviously doubt that hypothetical is viable (I mean, ldo, but just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's not a relevant point).
2) Utilitarianism doesn't mean that you CAN'T account for distribution of value. You can plug whatever considerations you want into the equation to determine which leads to an overall better society; it doesn't HAVE to be just a raw "happiness" number or whatever.
You could argue that this is a deviation from old-school, John Stuart Mill-style utilitarianism, but I don't give a shit about the semantics of it. Call it neo-utilitarianism whatever the fuck you want, I don't give a shit.
Reply With Quote