It's pretty uncontroversial. That's what makes it such a great tool for propaganda, since heinous acts can be misframed as the utilitarian alternative to a hypothetical worse situation that's allegedly being prevented (nuking Japan's an obvious example of this in my mind). It's still a strong baseline for the critical mind that few people truly reject, but in practice, it's applied retroactively to justify actions as opposed to predicating them.
Your example generally holds but I think that when push comes to shove, people view things in a more shortsighted way that runs contrary to utilitarianism. For example, if the older person was a relative, they might prefer the short term emotional utility that they provide to them versus the longer term and more widespread social/labour utility that the younger person would provide.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.
|