Upon reflection, the difficult question of utilitarianism (for me) isn't happiness, but why it should be maximised for all or wherever it potentially exists instead of for just a few.

I think you could couple it with evolutionary biology or other philosophies to figure that bit out, f.ex. the aforementioned social contract.

No, I mean there must be some basis for the morals you feel, for some people it's more logical and for others emothional, but even emothional reactions are a kind of subconscious ethical system. That ethical system doesn't have to be utilitarian, but for basically everyone it is. There is always an underlying system, like to use a different example the traditional visceral religious convictions can be traced back to wanting to keep power structures intact

I don't have time to read the rest of the discussion, I may get back to it later

How do you know if that value is misplaced or not?

I'd like a moral basis that is a little firmer than blind faith and conjecture :laughing:

I also think that's it's easily achievable.

They established that I'm a utilitarian then said I have to play with unrealistic hypotheticals because it's what utilitarians do. I don't like dumb hypotheticals.

One example was if you should kill somebody that doesn't want to die if I know that death would cause less suffering for them than letting them live. Or something like that. I said imposing on somebody's choice will cause an unnecessary suffering and also the psychological suffering it would cause me, personally, wouldn't justify it.

It was a stupid hypothetical that has no practical use in the real world.

Nah that's an add on they install at the hospital.

it's subjective but it's not random. And if it's not random that means there is some underlying influences that ultimately shape the direction that it takes, and those influences I would argue are intrinsically tied to instincts that we formed over however long which in themselves are shaped by pursuing certain types of outcomes. Whether consciously or unconsciously.

I.e. there's probably a reason most people would value freedom rather than slavery, truth rather than deception, etc

Like you say democracy is self justified. What is it about democracy that makes it self justified as opposed to tyranny being self justified instead?

you're using utilitarian/consequentialist language/reasoning whether you are aware of it or not

I.e. framing it as an attempt to maximize well being and reduce suffering.

>_>

And there we have what I suspected: the ethics you proclaim to follow are basically aesthetics. I guess that's your intention though