That Utilitarianism is Untenable

The Mere-Addition Paradox P1 - According to Utilitarianism, a society with more total pleasure is preferable to a society with less total pleasure. Ex. A society with 100 hedons is preferable to a society with 99 hedons. For an explanation of how hedons are calculated under Utilitarianism, please see Source 1. P2 - A society with a large population of very happy people is inferior to a society with an equivalent population and then an additional group of people with lives barely worth living. Ex. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the greatest life ever lived was worth 1000 hedons. A society with a population of 10 billion people each of whom lived this life would be worth 10 trillion hedons. This society (let us call it 'Society A') would be inferior to a society with this population plus an additional population of 10 billion people with lives barely worth living, only worth 1 hedon (let us call this society, 'Society A+'). This is because Society A+ is only worth 10.001 trillion hedons whereas Society A is only worth 10 trillion. P3 - According to Utilitarianism, a society where each person has a hedon value equal to the mean hedon value of this second society is equal to the second society and hence superior to the first. Ex. Society A+ has a total hedon value of 10.001 trillion hedons and a population of 20 billion. Imagine a third society (let us call it 'Society B'), where each citizen has a hedonic value of 500.05 hedons. Society B would therefore be equal to Society A+ and hence superior to Society A. P4 - This process could be repeated ad infinitum until eventually we arrive at a society with a very large number of people each of whom lived lives barely worth living which would still in fact be preferrable to the seemingly utopian original society. Ex. Let us call this society 'Society Z'. P5 - It is untenable to maintain that this society is better than the Utopian one envisioned in P1. C - Utilitarianism is untenable. Fig. 1 - A diagramatic representation of the Mere Addition Paradox. Fig. 2 - A cartoon that parodies this conclusion. The Utility Monster P1 - According to Utilitarianism, it is morally obligatory to decrease your own hedonic value if doing so is the action that will increase the hedonic value of society by the greatest amount. Ex. If there existed a monster, who would take great sadistic pleasure in my pain, and inflicing pain upon myself in order to give it this sadistic pleasure was the action that created the most total happiness for society, then it would be morally obligatory for me to do so. P2 - According to Utilitarianism, it is morally obligatory to decrease the hedonic value of someone else if doing so is the action that will increase the hedonic value of society by the greatest amount. Ex. If this monster would take more pleasure from the suffering of someone else, then it would be morally obligatory to harm them in order to give the monster its pleasure. P3 - If a group of people can sacrifice themselves in order to give greater pleasure to one particular being that could experience a pleasure more significant than all of their pains combined, then the group would be obliged to do so. Ex. If we extend the sadistic power of this "Utility monster" such that it would not suffer from a diminishing marginal return of pleasure, then all members of society would be morally obliged to inflict as much pain as possible upon themselves to give greater pleasure to the monster. P4 - If any of these premises is untenable, then so is Utilitarianism, which presupposes them. C - Utilitarianism is untenable. An. I believe that three particularly important lessons can be derived here: 1) Hedonism, and hence Hedonistic Utilitarianism does not discriminate between different types of pleasure. Sadistic pleasure is just as intrsically valuable as compassionate pleasure. One might try to avoid this, as JS Mill did, but it seems absurd to maintain that some pleasures could intrinsically be better than other pleasures without being more pleasant under Hedonism. 2) Utilitarianism does not give any preference to morally better people. The seemingly evil Utility monster was just as worthy of pleasure as any saint would be. 3) Utilitarianism does not give any preference to equality over inequality. There is no reason under Utilitarianism, why we should help the worst off rather than the best off when we can benefit each equally. Moral Luck P1 - Any tenable moral system only lays blame on people for actions over which they had control. P2 - Utilitarianism is subject to 'moral luck' where people are morally better because they are luckier, even though luck is inherently beyond their control. Ex. Two people (let's call them "A" and "B") each toss a coin. When a coin lands heads, world hunger is solved; when a coin lands tails, one billion people die. A's coin lands heads and hence solves world hunger. B's coin lands tails, and hence one billion people die. According to Utilitarianism, A has done something morally praiseworthy, while B has done something truly evil. This is known as consequential moral luck, because the consequences of the action were inherently luck based, and according to Utilitarianism, so was the ethical praise and condemnation due to each person. This is an inherent and inescapable problem with any form of consequentialism. C - Utilitarianism is untenable. An. I believe that this shows the greatest problem with Utilitarianism, that it gives no heeway to intentionality. Given that Utilitarianism is concerned with consequences and consequences only, people can intend to wonderful things and be unlucky, under Utilitarianism this is morally bad, while people who intend to do horrible things but get morally lucky are morally praisworthy. The Trolley Problem P1 - According to Utilitarianism it is morally obligatory to do the action that increases society's hedonic value to the greatest possible extent. P2 - According to Utilitarianism, if there was a speeding trolley that was going to run over five people, then (providing that all six lives are equal in hedonic value) it would always morally obligatory to kill one person to save the five. Ex. If there was a bridge running over the train tracks, and there was a very fat man on the bridge whose mass would be enough to stop the trolley dead in its tracks, then it would be morally obligatory to push him off the bridge in order to save the five. Fig. 3 - A representation of this variant of the trolley problem. P3 - It is not tenable to maintain that P2 is correct, given that there exceptions. C - Utilitarianism is untenable. An. In fact, not only does Utilitarianism maintain that it would be morally obligatory to push the fat man, it maintains that it is not even up for debate. According to Utilitarianism, any feeling to the contrary is in fact mere moral squeemishness, a weakness of human nature, because it is clear that pushing the fat man produces the best consequences. Conclusion I have shown to you conclusively that Utilitarianism is untenable. If any of these arguments is not fully refuted then the resolution of this debate remains affirmed. Vote Pro. Sources 1) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 4 http://www.econlib.org...