Utilitarianism functions as a paradigm

1) Utility defies human nature. I'm not how this is 1) true or 2) how that makes it a bad paragigm. If anything, pleasure seeking is what defines human nature. We go around looking for happiness, not as mindless drone bent on survival at all costs. We are rational beings, which means that we operate on a higher level than merely living life in order to make sure we don't die. I would certainly rather have I moral paradigm in which I seek pleasure of myself in others in my actions, living a full and meaningful life, rather than devolve to my baser instincts and existing, purely for the sake of not dying. You are wrong here. Animal instinct may be the need to survive, but we should be above this kind of irrational, survivalism at all costs, mentality. 2) Utility means we can take our own lives (sacrificial lamb) Again, you say this as if it were a bad thing. If an objective person deems it just to take his own life in the name of society he should do so. We sse this in society all the time. We honor men (mankind in general) who dive on grenades, run into burning buildings and go fight wars. What about the armed services? Your paradigm makes all of these people unjust and, in essence, stupid. Again, we SHOULD be above this survivalist mindset. The fact is, there are situations in which people should take/risk their own lives and safety for societal good. This doesn't make them sacrificial lambs, it makes them heroes. 3) Utility justifies inflicting pain. As I stated in my last post, this is merely a consequence of every form of decision-making. There exists no perfect choice. Every decision is going to lead to negative effects, regardless of your moral paradigm. There exists no perfect system. That is not what I am arguing. What utility does is offer us the ability to maximize pleasure in the face of that pain. Since pain and negative consequences are unavoidable, no matter what, the best we can do is hope to get the best pleasure/pain ratio, you might say. Utility does this when performed correctly. 4) People are not smart enough to make utility work. This would only be true if I needed Utility to be perfect. People do not need to be all knowing or calculate each possible scenario. Utility is able to function from a practical standpoint. Is EVERY decision just all the time? No, but again, that is true of every moral framework. You talk about our decisions as if they have some kind of global magnitude. My everyday decisions certainly don't effect the planet at large, in any significant way. From a practical standpoint, utility advocates weighing the pros and cons in order to maximize pleasure vs. pain. This doesn't mean I have to take EVERY consequence into account EVERY time I act. Again, that would entail perfection. I simply need to look at the viable consequences and weigh them objectively. Here again, you make this human nature argument. You claim that human's selfish, stupid, and ambivolent nature means they will seak out survival and pleasure, rather than act objectively. This may be true or not (I don't beleive it is), but this is EXACTLY what utility overcomes. The drive that makes people selfish and survivalist is absent in a utilitarian system. Instead, people act with rational quantification of the consequences of their actions, rather than trying to merely stay alive or benefit themselves. Whether or not man is naturaly selfish and survivalist is irrelevant, as even if they were, utility solves for this, changing peoples motives to rational and considerate ones. 4) Subjectivity/Objectivity You avoid my point here. How much pleasure/pain a particular person receives as the result of an act is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Do we measure pleasure in inches or pounds? No, but this does not mean it is subjective in any way. The objectiveness of how much pleasure someone receives is correlated to our quanitfying it. Just because we don't have set numbers to define it, doesn't mean it isn't universally measured. Note what I claim in my opening statement. I don't think Utility is perfect, or even the best option. Your paradigm may function well or better, but it bears no weight on the debate. So, disregarding other paradigms. I don't need utility to be perfect. Utilitarianism is the calculation of WHAT IT IS for an action to be good or bad. The amount of pleasure, which isn't the meaning we commonly use it as, just a loose term for benefits, is an objective fact, free from personal opinion. Just because we don't have a perverbial measuring stick for pleasure does not mean it is subjective. The possibility for miscalculation is there when people make ignorant choices, but this is true for every decision making tool. Utilitarianism functions well most of the time, accomplishes its goal, most of the time. This is all I need it to do in order for it to be a functional paradigm. It clearly doesn't advocate any gross monstrocities and its aim and use is practical, objective and directed correctly. This makes it, for the large part, functional and workable, as is my claim for the debate.