[Rich]

I presume a utilitarian would argue for the long term benefits of a policy. So for example sacrificing people in the arena Roman style might bring a short term net gain in utility, (particularly in modern times with video, DVD, 4k television and the like) but would be seen as deleterious to the long term health of the society.

[emmitt]

Moreover, there are different types of utilitarianism. You'll get completely different calculation results if you mainly consider the effects of rules instead of singular acts. So it might be possible to maximize utility if you sacrifice a single person for the benefit of a couple of individuals. Unfortunately, this might backfire however if it became a rule to always sacrifice individuals in the name of the collective since people would fear being next. This might reduce overall societal utility in the end.
Generally, it seems to be best to combine both rule and act utilitarianism. (BTW, there are other problems as well like the question if it's better to maximize total or average utility or to prioritize pain or pleasure.)

[sol]

Moreover, there are different types of utilitarianism. You'll get completely different calculation results if you mainly consider the effects of rules instead of singular acts. So it might be possible to maximize utility if you sacrifice a single person for the benefit of a couple of individuals. Unfortunately, this might backfire however if it became a rule to always sacrifice individuals in the name of the collective since people would fear being next. This might reduce overall societal utility in the end.
Generally, it seems to be best to combine both rule and act utilitarianism. (BTW, there are other problems as well like the question if it's better to maximize total or average utility or to prioritize pain or pleasure.)

The way I understand it, rule utilitarianism tries to solve the "human sacrifice problem" by abstracting away from particular choices. So, say a group of individuals knows positively that the consequences of sacrificing one of their own would be good for the group. A purely act-utilitarian would have to agree, regardless of the circumstance. A rule-utilitarian would say that because human sacrifices have been found to lead to negative consequences in the past most social groups have formed cultural norms, or rules, that forbid it. So it's likely that following this time-tested rule will lead to better long term consequences, no matter how clear the immediate future might seem. You seem like you know more about this subject, though. Do you consider yourself a utilitarian?

[emmitt]

I don't disagree. Rule utilitarianism is focused on evaluating the consequences of general rules whereas act utilitarianism takes singular acts into consideration. You could arguably justify deontological systems of ethics by relying on rule utilitarianism. So it's a neat and tidy strategy to substantiate moral principles at least in some cases.

As to your question: I do consider myself a consequentialist in a very general sense. Two-level utilitarianism is fine for evaluating more abstract stuff though.

[sol]

You could arguably justify deontological systems of ethics by relying on rule utilitarianism. So it's a neat and tidy strategy to substantiate moral principles at least in some cases.

(let me steer this back on topic kinda) Didn't Nozick try this? I haven't read him, but it seems like utilitarianism is inescapably consequentialist, which makes ideas like universally inviolable individual rights are nearly impossible to justify, something that I understand to be fundamental to his project.

As to your question: I do consider myself a consequentialist in a very general sense. Two-level utilitarianism is fine for evaluating more abstract stuff though.

I see utilitarianism as a decent way to manage real world issues, like you said "evaluating" stuff. However, I remain unconvinced of its (well, all forms I'm familiar with) validity as a descriptive ethics.

[emmitt]

Well, utilitarianism is a type of normative ethics. It's not necessarily supposed to reflect the way people actually deal with moral conundrums. I don't think there's a good a priori reason to believe that people need to be intuitively correct about morality. They could be wrong and utilitarianism might be able to correct them in that case. Just because individuals might think something's morally acceptable doesn't mean it actually is. In fact, there's a good deal of evidence that shows how even political factions within a specific cultural environment tend to have distinctive moral intuitions. (Jonathan Haidht has talked about this quite a lot.) So somebody needs to be wrong in some cases. They can't all be right.

Didn't Nozick try this? I haven't read him, but it seems like utilitarianism is inescapably consequentialist, which makes ideas like universally inviolable individual rights are nearly impossible to justify, something that I understand to be fundamental to his project.

Yes, utilitarianism is inescapably consequentialist since it is a type of consequentialism. Nozick would've been opposed to utilitarianism and I seriously doubt the Nozickian proviso could be justified by relying on utilitarianism unless you're absolutely convinced that every violation of Nozick's minimal state would ultimately lead to tyranny which would produce more negative than positive utility.

But an alternative version of deontology could possibly be grounded in rule utilitarianism. You just need to be dramatic enough about (the consequences of) possible rule violations.

[sol]

Well, utilitarianism is a type of normative ethics.

I've only read Mill on utilitarianism and he thought that utilitarianism can be descriptive and normative. I should be more careful to not extend that belief to all utilitarians. Who's a more modern defender of the theory that I could read?

Nozick would've been opposed to utilitarianism

He was passionately opposed to utilitarianism, I'm learning.

[emmitt]

Peter Singer whom I mentioned on the first page. Raymond Frey is not too bad. R. M. Hare is interesting. You could also read Derek Parfit's stuff or this (I'm not sure why I had to mention it.) to get a sense of the craziness.

It all depends on your goals: Are you trying to challenge your views? Are you looking for an overview of normative ethics in general? Are you looking for the moral foundations of your ideology?

(It's probably best to wait for someone who's actually studied philosophy.)

[sol]

What little Singer I've read has been related to animal liberation, not ethics specifically. Never heard of Frey or Hare, but I do know of Derek Parfit. I attempted to read Reasons and Persons, but could not sacrifice the time necessary to finish it (or even really start it).

It all depends on your goals: Are you trying to challenge your views? Are you looking for an overview of normative ethics in general? Are you looking for the moral foundations of your ideology?

Well, I'm always trying to challenge my views and I'm not purposefully seeking to justify my ideology. I'd just like to learn the competing views well enough that the "correct" one will become apparent to me. I've only just begun studying the subject, so reading an overview might be helpful. The book I'm currently reading, After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre, outlines the history of moral philosophy, but it's only there to bolster his arguments (understandably).

[emmitt]

Peter Singer usually says that he wasn't terribly interested in animal liberation or animals in general for that matter until he thought about morality. Apparently, he became convinced of its relevance because of theoretical considerations. (Just for the record: I find the story hard to believe. He probably knew what he was looking for. He just needed the theoretical foundations to make his case more persuasive.)

Alasdair MacIntyre is fascinating even if you're not looking for an overview or history of moral philosophy. His work on communitarianism is a decent alternative to Rawls' liberal egalitarianism (even though Michael Sandel might be a bit more relevant to today's ideological issues.)