Utilitarianism functions as a paradigm

You've misconstrued my arguments: 1. I never said "utility" defies human nature, I said someone foregoing the pursuit of his own self interests so that strangers may prosper defies human nature. Defying human nature is a "bad program" because it cannot be sustained. Any "program" is bad -- Man should be free to pursue his own interests without infringing upon the Natural rights of his neighbors. You say "pleasure seeking" is Man's nature, and when "pleasure" is broadly defined, this is true. But it is not in Man's nature to forfeit his own pursuit of happiness or to allow others to initiate force against him in order to allow strangers to have "pleasure." Man is not a sacrificial animal. He exists for his own sake. 2. I never said I had any problem with someone choosing to take his or her own life. My problem is with a political or moral philosophy in which human beings think of themselves as worker bees existing for the collective benefit of the hive. Taking one's own life is not initiating force, and thus it is allowed under a Natural Law philosophy, but it is not DEMANDED for "the greater good", as is the case with utilitarianism. 3. Utility involves inflicting pain whenever someone rationalizes that doing so will create greater "pleasure" for society than the resulting pain. In addition to being immoral and a violation of Natural Law, this suffers from the "Socialist Calculation" problem highlighted by Ludwig von Mises. Human action and human values are too diverse and ever-changing to know the amount of pain or pleasure any given action will produce. Thus, the utility of any given action is incalculable, and utilitarianism as a creed is impossible, in addition to morally bankrupt. 4. Individuals are smart enough to pursue their own interests without violating the rights of others to do so, and in so doing, the greater good (utility) is realized. But individuals are NOT "smart" enough to calculate how any given action will impact all of society -- the measures of such are not quantifiable, and the calculation is impossible (see above). Thus, any action taken with the objective of maximizing "utility" without the constraints of Natural Law is doomed to failure, while the actions of individuals acting in accordance with Natural Law, in the pursuit of their own rational self interests, irrespective of the societal utility of those actions, will produce superior utility, in the aggregate. See Adam Smith. 5. No, you ignore MY point. Utilitarianism, at least as we have been discussing it throughout this debate (and you've never disabused me of this notion), involves calculating the total pleasure or pain a society experiences as a result of a given action -- at least when applied as a philosophy of statecraft. Taking the more narrow view, that an individual should maximize pleasure and minimize pain of his own person, without regard to the pleasure/pain of others or their Natural rights, produces a philosophy that is even more immoral and prone to a breakdown of societal relations. If individuals acted without respect of the pain they inflict on others, only to the pleasure they produce for themselves, then trade and the division of labor would quickly cease, leading to massive erosions in living standards and an overall increase in the "pain" of poverty. Thus, applied utilitarianism (under this view), is even worse, and like most socialist endeavors, results in the opposite of the intended effect. Individuals should not act as aggressors against their fellows, even if doing so would maximize their pleasure, or even if they BELIEVE the actions would produce more pleasure for them than pain for their peers or more pleasure than pain for society. Utilitarianism justifies aggression if it can be reasoned by the aggressor that he's maximizing utility (either for himself or for the tribe, however broadly defined). But true utility is arrived at through division of labor and trade, which is incompatible with a moral system that is inconsistent with Natural Law. Utilitarianism is, thus, un-utilitarian, and absolutely does not "function as a paradigm."