How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

[Drogue]

Oh it is, to a complete degree. I still think it is the best method we have to decide on something, but I will admit it is not perfect. As a perfect system would require perfect knowledge, which can never exist.

[Whaleboy]

Not everything beyong the Mill Limit involves absolutism

I know, but forcing ones will onto another, in the sense you are talking about does, indeed any active sense as opposed to passive or influence.

Indeed, in imposing the Mill Limit on a nation regardless of democracy could be seen as absolutist

Not if the ML is the pseudo-objective for that given context. It is not an absolute and is thus not applicable to all, or indeed anything outside of that context. In the utilitarian sense, the Mill Limit would prevent you from forcing utilitarian views, i.e. killing a person, onto another, despite the logic used to back up that action by the Utilitarian, the logic is as subjective as that position and would not justify forcing it onto another, to whom it does not necessarily apply.

Also I use the ML as an example, any comparable system would work, I just find (although I am biased) the Mill Limit to be a more consistent approach.

I am saying the framework I use for deciding what is best

Which works for you, but that position and the logic you use to back it up, or the logic a utilitarian society uses to back it up, does not justify forcing it onto another, i.e. carrying out that action by killing someone, nor would it classify that action as logical because of that very same reason... it is being forced onto another to whom the assumptions used to base ones utilitarian views need not apply.

It just means I want to maximise total happiness/utility

Then the utilitarian would advocate that point of view, however, in the case of a utilitarian, or a utilitarian society, vs the individual whose death it would justify as being beneficial in a utilitarian context, one has a simple debate in society, to which the society must judge, and any sociological model would do so. In my case, it would be the Mill Limit, although in any relativist (non absolutist) system, it would apply, that that extra wildcard of relativism would prevent it from choosing the total utilitarian approach.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
I know, but forcing ones will onto another, in the sense you are talking about does, indeed any active sense as opposed to passive or influence.

Since I do not believe in the Mill Limit, and since we are talking about realism, as in here and now, in which the Mill Limit,a s you have said, would not work, I do not think that matters. Laws against hard drugs is active impedance, but it works better for todays society than ones without. When we are ready for the Mill Limit, as you have said, it will also be Utilitarian, as it will be the option that creates the most happiness. However for the world we live in today, the ML would not work, and thus is not the 'best' option.

Originally posted by elijah
Not if the ML is the pseudo-objective for that given context.

Which it isn't. You are using that as such, I am using Utilitarianism as such. As you know I do not believe in pseudo objectives in the way in which you do.

Originally posted by elijah
Also I use the ML as an example, any comparable system would work, I just find (although I am biased) the Mill Limit to be a more consistent approach.

And I find the idea of choosing what is the 'best' option for society to be the most consistent.

[Whaleboy]

Since I do not believe in the Mill Limit, and since we are talking about realism, as in here and now, in which the Mill Limit,a s you have said, would not work, I do not think that matters

Any relativism-based system (i.e. one that is not based on flawed absolutist principles) can be dropped in place of the ML. I'm merely using it because I find it to be more consistent out of the myriad of possible rel. based systems.

Which it isn't. You are using that as such, I am using Utilitarianism as such

Is too! In the conflict between Utilitarianism (a society or possibly an individual etc) and an individual, one can insert a relativist system on top there and say that it has to choose between the two. In reality, that could be the part of an objective observer (in this sense, independent of the conflict between the two), and as a relativist, if I were that observer, I would not choose to kill that person for precisely the absolutist reasons I have specified.

And I find the idea of choosing what is the 'best' option for society to be the most consistent

I find the idea of choosing the most logical and objective choice for society to be most consistent, of course, by definition that is the case

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Is too! In the conflict between Utilitarianism (a society or possibly an individual etc) and an individual, one can insert a relativist system on top there and say that it has to choose between the two.

There is not conflict here. We are discussing Utilitarianism. To bring in another concept, the Mill Limit, is not more and objective than Utilitarianism. Indeed, even with a conflict, just because it is between the two, does not make it objective.

Originally posted by elijah
I find the idea of choosing the most logical and objective choice for society to be most consistent, of course, by definition that is the case

As you know, I do not believe that the most objective choice is the best one, necessarily. And I think quailty, what is best, is more important than consistency. I mean, does anyone really care if their gravy is too thin when talking about political philosophy? Consistency matters little

[Whaleboy]

Indeed, even with a conflict, just because it is between the two

The conflict I am debating is between the utilitarian and the individual who he advocates killing for the greater good etc. In this case, an objective with relativist/Mill Limit wildcards will not choose the absolute utilitarian path of killing that person, because it is precisely an absolutist action, as previously posted, dont get me copying and pasting this late!

I do not believe that the most objective choice is the best one, necessarily

Define best. You will find it impossible to do so without referring to a certain context, in which it will obtain an inherent subjectivity. As such, I fall back to the notion that the most objective (due to "field of view", so to speak, consideration, and the wildcards of probably higher concerns) is in a better position to see, but then, again from a non-absolutist point of view, the objective (or pseudo-objective to be precise) option is always the most logical.

Consistency matters little

In that sense in which you speak, I agree, however, in the bigger picture, philosophical consistency means that concepts can be woven together and reconciled with much greater logic, ease and power. Also, I believe in the aesthetics of a concept, and I find ideas and concepts to be more beautiful and aesthetic in an artistic sense, when they are consistent, of course, in this context is not important, but who says you cant be an artist and a philosopher at once .

"I paint pictures in your mind man"

[Ben Kenobi]

Utilitarianism involves us knowing all the consequences.

A perfect utilitarianism would require us to know all the consequences of our actions. Since this is impossible, we have to settle for faulty measurements. This is one of the reasons people favour rule over act utilitarianism, since rule utilitarianism provides a set of rules designed to maximise happiness.

Rather than performing the calculus, you follow a set of rules that allow you to make quicker decisions.

Now, I'm not a Utilitarian because of the source of the rules. I trust people less than I trust God to make an accurate set.

Azazel:

I find it interesting that you doubt Utilitarianism based on the abortion issue. Now, I can argue as a fine utilitarian why you should oppose abortion.

Look at the life of the child, in an abortion, that person will not get a chance to live a life, have children and to start their own family.

What is on the other side of the balance for the mother? Will she die without an abortion? In some cases, ectopic pregnancy, she will. In all other cases she will not.

Therefore, the life of the child does not balance the rights of the mother, since the permanent happiness loss of the child far outweighs the temporary happiness loss for the mother while pregnant.

In fact, I could argue that most unplanned pregnancies will increase the happiness of the mother over the course of her lifespan, short term pain for long term gain.

After the abortion, the mother may be happier, for the short term if she does not suffer complications. If she does, then she will be unhappier after the abortion.

[Giant_Squid]

Utilitiarianism is a hollow shell. We humans only just barely understand the world around us, and this strikes me as a clumsy attempt at value assignment to justify whatever acts or actions one desires.

I think this is one of the best arguments FOR the utilitarian position (note that I am arguing from an atheistic standpoint here - you can't argue utilitiarianism very well from a traditional religious viewpoint, though I'm sure someone could try). In a deontological stance, you claim to know fundamental moral laws of the Universe - laws that are beyond normal human laws and therefore superior to them. You claim to know these laws so well that they are important enough that you should follow them even if following them causes pain to a lot of people.
It seems to me very arrogant for anyone except a religious person (who thinks he knows these laws because God told them to him) to think he knows this stuff so well. In fact, saying you know such universal moral principles is almost putting yourself in the shoes of God and engraving your own little "thou shalt nots" which are naturally superior to everyone else's (and of course not all that many people really agree as to what these rules are) On the other hand, we do at least have *some* power to predict our actions - otherwise we'd never be able to live a normal life, constantly wondering whether we were making a mistake by not slapping our friends in the face for no apparent reason (which by SOME conceivable chain of circumstance could end up helping him). The argument that we can't predict the consequences of our actions perfectly is one that has rarely stopped us in any other walk of life.



Since everyone got to play "make up silly scenarios for the utilitarians", can I throw one at the anti-utilitarians now? You live in the Third World in a country without decent medical care. Your young child gets an illness that will lead to an extremely painful death within a few months. It can be cured by a thousand-dollar treatment, but a thousand dollars is more than you earn in years in your sweatshop. One day the CEO of the company comes into the sweatshop for a routine inspection and asks you to hold his coat. He's a multibajillionaire, so you ask him for money, but he refuses. He then goes on some inspection, and you've got his coat, which it so happens has a few thousand dollars in bills in the pocket. You know he probably wouldn't even notice it's gone. Do you steal the money and save your young child's life, or do you adhere to your anti-stealing rule?

[Az]

Vel: It also depends how big the +s and -s are, nut just the number. Dying is a big -, whereas money is a much smaller +, in most cases. It may take millions of small +s to make one big -, if you do it like that.

Precisely.

Drogue: So who can say what the value of a human life is? That seems to be a rather difficult thing to nail down, yes?

Since the point is to have as much people as happy for longest period of time, a person dying is the the the (negative) utility of the actual dying, minus the value that utility of that person continuing to live.

Exactly, which is why we cannot know what the Utilitarian action, the 'best' action, is. We must make judgements on the available information though, and we have to make judgements. I believe that a desire for the maximum happiness/welfare/utility is the best way to guide each action and it's consequences, making allowance for the fact that we do not know all the consequences. We can speculate the best cause with Utilitarianism, but without it we cannot even do that and we must leave it all up to chance. If we have to choose, we should do it aiming for what creates the most happiness/welfare/utility according to all information we have IMHO. That is if we have to choose. Thus if you hav to choose between 1000 people dying, and 1 person dying, all chosen at random, we should choose the 1 person. Yes a human life is invaluble, but would any person say that their life is worth more than the lives of 1000 other people? I doubt you would find many. Therefore, forced to choose, I would choose the one.

A perfect utilitarianism would require us to know all the consequences of our actions. Since this is impossible, we have to settle for faulty measurements. This is one of the reasons people favour rule over act utilitarianism, since rule utilitarianism provides a set of rules designed to maximise happiness.

But since they look at the utilitarian value of single actions, and totally dump the global context, rule utilitarianism is... well.. not utilitarian.

Rather than performing the calculus, you follow a set of rules that allow you to make quicker decisions

Which are not the most ethical ones.

Now, I'm not a Utilitarian because of the source of the rules. I trust people less than I trust God to make an accurate set.

I don't believe in god.

I find it interesting that you doubt Utilitarianism based on the abortion issue. Now, I can argue as a fine utilitarian why you should oppose abortion.

I don't doubt Utilitarianism based on abortion. I doubt abortion based on Utilitarianism.

Look at the life of the child, in an abortion, that person will not get a chance to live a life, have children and to start their own family.

What is on the other side of the balance for the mother? Will she die without an abortion? In some cases, ectopic pregnancy, she will. In all other cases she will not.

Therefore, the life of the child does not balance the rights of the mother, since the permanent happiness loss of the child far outweighs the temporary happiness loss for the mother while pregnant.

In fact, I could argue that most unplanned pregnancies will increase the happiness of the mother over the course of her lifespan, short term pain for long term gain.

After the abortion, the mother may be happier, for the short term if she does not suffer complications. If she does, then she will be unhappier after the abortion.

Pretty much my arguments against. But there are also some arguments for abortion, such as economical status, etc.

[DanielXY]

So if I steal 1 million dollars from some rich person, who has 100 million more dollars. Therefor it would be a a relativ minor loss to him.
Than I feed with the money 1.000 children in africa or somewhere for 1 year (or even longer...) who would other wise starve.
It would be finally the utilitarian thing to do?

Saved 1.000 lifes for 1 year = 1.000 big +++
1 Person lost 1% of his money = minor -

any flaws?

[Az]

there is the entire "lawlessness" factor, but yes, I think that this would be a good thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

I doubt abortion based on Utilitarianism.

Well then I wasted a fine post.

But there are also some arguments for abortion, such as economical status, etc.

I would think zeroing the child's productivity plays a much larger role than any effect on the mother's productivity, from the standpoint of economics.

[Ben Kenobi]

Giant_Squid

I throw one at the anti-utilitarians now?

It's a free country.

You live in the Third World in a country without decent medical care. Your young child gets an illness that will lead to an extremely painful death within a few months. It can be cured by a thousand-dollar treatment, but a thousand dollars is more than you earn in years in your sweatshop.

One day the CEO of the company comes into the sweatshop for a routine inspection and asks you to hold his coat. He's a multibajillionaire, so you ask him for money, but he refuses. He then goes on some inspection, and you've got his coat, which it so happens has a few thousand dollars in bills in the pocket. You know he probably wouldn't even notice it's gone. Do you steal the money and save your young child's life, or do you adhere to your anti-stealing rule?

What would I do?


He already said no?

Take the money.
Leave a note saying you took the money.
Try to repay over the years.
Enjoy your child.

[Az]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I would think zeroing the child's productivity plays a much larger role than any effect on the mother's productivity, from the standpoint of economics.

This is not about economics. This is about happiness.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Originally posted by DanielXY So if I steal 1 million dollars from some rich person, who has 100 million more dollars. Therefor it would be a a relativ minor loss to him. Than I feed with the money 1.000 children in africa or somewhere for 1 year (or even longer...) who would other wise starve. It would be finally the utilitarian thing to do? Saved 1.000 lifes for 1 year = 1.000 big +++ 1 Person lost 1% of his money = minor - any flaws?

there is the entire "lawlessness" factor, but yes, I think that this would be a good thing.

So somehow you can say that Utiliarism should be Communist, because in Communism (if properly applied) you have no single persons who own a lot of money, but it is more equally distributed, because most of the larger Industries are administrated by government.
So, instead of an uneqally distribution of money (and therefore the chance to buy "happiness") where few people have lots of it and most people possess much less, money is distributed more equally among the society which therefore should also lead to an increased mean-happiness within the society
(as I said, if Communism is applied properly and such thing as Mass Murdering/Mass Deportations of people thought to be dangerous for the government don´t take place and the formerly Bourgoisie isn´t just replaced by Members of the ruling party)

[Az]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

Quote:

there is the entire "lawlessness" factor, but yes, I think that this would be a good thing.

So somehow you can say that Utiliarism should be Communist, because in Communism (if properly applied) you have no single persons who own a lot of money, but it is more equally distributed, because most of the larger Industries are administrated by government.
So, instead of an uneqally distribution of money (and therefore the chance to buy "happiness") where few people have lots of it and most people possess much less, money is distributed more equally among the society which therefore should also lead to an increased mean-happiness within the society
(as I said, if Communism is applied properly and such thing as Mass Murdering/Mass Deportations of people thought to be dangerous for the government don´t take place and the formerly Bourgoisie isn´t just replaced by Members of the ruling party)

I don't think that property should be distributed completely equally. I think that people should be rewarded for their actions, which is also utilitarian thing to do. But the situation that exists todays is apalling, from an ethical pov.

[Giant_Squid]

So somehow you can say that Utiliarism should be Communist, because in Communism (if properly applied) you have no single persons who own a lot of money, but it is more equally distributed, because most of the larger Industries are administrated by government.
So, instead of an uneqally distribution of money (and therefore the chance to buy "happiness") where few people have lots of it and most people possess much less, money is distributed more equally among the society which therefore should also lead to an increased mean-happiness within the society (as I said, if Communism is applied properly and such thing as Mass Murdering/Mass Deportations of people thought to be dangerous for the government don´t take place and the formerly Bourgoisie isn´t just replaced by Members of the ruling party)

It sounds good in theory, but in practice it seems that communism ends out causing less happiness for almost everyone. A good utilitarian would, imho, accept that
fact, realize that capitalism increases utility, and stick with it (or try a Third Way type of thing). I suppose if some country proved that Communism could deliver on all its promises and really make people happy then utilitarians would have to become Communists, but I'm not holding my breath
Utilitarianism's interesting in that it doesn't really give you any answers, it just is a way to eliminate false leads. Utilitarianism can't tell you whether communism or capitalism is better, it can only strike down arguments like that such and such a system may not make people happy but has an inherent moral superiority. Finding out which is better is still as annoying and difficult a process as always.

[Az]

I want government control of the economy, but not equal outcome for everyone. It can be done, and with technology getting better and better, it is more and more feasible.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Azazel
I want government control of the economy, but not equal outcome for everyone. It can be done, and with technology getting better and better, it is more and more feasible.

Yes, it would be ideal if people would get the money on the basis of what they really archive
so that for example a manager doesn´t necessarily earn so much more money than a worker despite the fact that the manager is some lazy moron who doesn´t benefit the Company very much, whereas the worker is very industrious, doing much overtime work and is making many Improvements suggestions.

[Whaleboy]

This is not about economics. This is about happiness

Why? The utilitarian approach to happiness requires some inherent absolutism which is illogical at best. I prefer utilitarianism tempered with relativism, resulting in the Mill Limit, where people are merely given the means by which they can be happy on their own, with no person having less opportunity than another.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Define best.

The option that has the most desirable consequences. That creates the most happiness/welfare/utility.

Originally posted by elijah
You will find it impossible to do so without referring to a certain context, in which it will obtain an inherent subjectivity.

Nope, and even so, it wouldn't be so bad because of it. Judge it on its merits, not on its supposed objectivity.

Originally posted by elijah
As such, I fall back to the notion that the most objective (due to "field of view", so to speak, consideration, and the wildcards of probably higher concerns) is in a better position to see

True. A better position to see, but not necessarily a better position to act. Big difference. The objective has the widest view, and can see the most. However it may not be the best option.

Originally posted by elijah
the objective (or pseudo-objective to be precise) option is always the most logical.

Say you have a debate about Britain in the Euro. There are 3 people:
A nobel prize-winning economist specialising in trading blocs,
An opinionated person who knows nothing of the consequences of joining or not joining and
A person with no opinion, who knows nothing about he issue. The last is what you would term a psuedo-objective, he is not part of the debate, he is not influenced by it, and he has no opinion on it. However it would almost certainly be a better option to choose the economist, who knows what he is talking about, as he is in a better position to decide. That would be more logical IMHO, even though he is not an objective.

Originally posted by elijah
who says you cant be an artist and a philosopher at once

Looking at your attempts at art, I do

Originally posted by elijah
"I paint pictures in your mind man"

No, with , you can paint pitures in your own mind, even though it may feel like mine

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Do you steal the money and save your young child's life, or do you adhere to your anti-stealing rule?

Steal the money.

Originally posted by Proteus_PST
So somehow you can say that Utiliarism should be Communist, because in Communism (if properly applied) you have no single persons who own a lot of money, but it is more equally distributed, because most of the larger Industries are administrated by government.
So, instead of an uneqally distribution of money (and therefore the chance to buy "happiness") where few people have lots of it and most people possess much less, money is distributed more equally among the society which therefore should also lead to an increased mean-happiness within the society

I disagree. Although I would say to GS's question that you would steal the money. I think equality does bring happiness, however I think the ability to work yourself to better things, a meritocracy, creates more happiness. Not only does it increase productivity, meaning that people have the ability to choose from more things, but it also means that on average, people have more money, even though it is unevenly distributed. I think capitalism, with caveats such as tax and public services, creates more happiness/welfare/utility, however some income/wealth redistribution, is good, for instance having a “minimum quality of life guarantee”, whereby all people are guaranteed access to basic healthcare, education, shelter and food, the ability to live. If you work you earn more, but so that no person has to live in poverty. Hence I would favour raising the tax rate (in the UK), to pay for better public services, but under a capitalist system.

Originally posted by elijah
Why? The utilitarian approach to happiness requires some inherent absolutism which is illogical at best. I prefer utilitarianism tempered with relativism, resulting in the Mill Limit, where people are merely given the means by which they can be happy on their own, with no person having less opportunity than another.

See the cultural relativism thread for peoples opinions of relativism. Absolutism is not illogical, indeed, what is or is not logical is not for you to decide. The utilitarianism approach to happiness does not even need absolutism, as it is very open. The definition of happiness can be different, and thus people do not need absolutism.

And for the why, all but the most free market of economists would say that happiness is not the same as money, and thus productivity does not necessarily bring happiness. Azazel was just pointing out to obiwan that it is about happiness, not economics.

[Whaleboy]

The option that has the most desirable consequences. That creates the most happiness/welfare/utility

A subjective utilitarian interpretation. You have done as predicted and applied a context, thus wildcards.

Nope, and even so, it wouldn't be so bad because of it. Judge it on its merits, not on its supposed objectivity

But its merits are only so in a context, which is unrelated to the validity of an opinion.

True. A better position to see, but not necessarily a better position to act

By definition, when a psuedo-objective acts along with a subjective, it becomes that subjective. However, the process of objective judging is preferable to the judging of one subjective, over another unrelated subjective, which, independent of the view of the first subjective, is equally valid.

A nobel prize-winning economist specialising in trading blocs,
An opinionated person who knows nothing of the consequences of joining or not joining and
A person with no opinion, who knows nothing about he issue. The last is what you would term a psuedo-objective, he is not part of the debate, he is not influenced by it, and he has no opinion on it. However it would almost certainly be a better option to choose the economist, who knows what he is talking about, as he is in a better position to decide.

Thats not more logical, thats a strawman . The informed person, the over-opinionated, under informed person (you're not having a go at me are you jk ) and the ignoranus.

The economic choice is say, two different options. The three people have different wildcards, qualified, opinionated and uninformed, with which they make different decisions about that choice. That is precisely because of the wildcards.

However, hypothetically, you can take the three positions, and then, in a different higher context (remember the house of cards?), can then judge the three deciders. The wildcard you possess of the economic argument being better than the ignorant argument, is precisely that... a wildcard, which you are applying to judge another concept.

In the absense of something that would make a view less valid than others, all are equally valid.

[Whaleboy]

See the cultural relativism thread for peoples opinions of relativism. Absolutism is not illogical

Only when dealing with the subjective with which it is concerned.

[Whaleboy]

See the cultural relativism thread for peoples opinions of relativism. Absolutism is not illogical

Only when dealing with the subjective with which it is concerned.

[Whaleboy]

Ah jesus!!! When they going to replace the servers?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
A subjective utilitarian interpretation. You have done as predicted and applied a context, thus wildcards.

In saying the most happiness? No, the wildcards lie in what you believe that happiness is, and in what consequences would causes the most happiness.

Originally posted by elijah
But its merits are only so in a context, which is unrelated to the validity of an opinion.

But everything has a context to be applied. I am talking about applying Utilitarianism, hence it is in a context.

Originally posted by elijah
Thats not more logical, thats a strawman . The informed person, the over-opinionated, under informed person (you're not having a go at me are you jk ) and the ignoranus.

No, that wasn't it at all. 2 people, the economist and the overopinionated person are having a discussion, the third, the man with no opinion, is the judge. He is the pseudo objective, yet he is not in a better position to judge. What's the strawman in that.

Originally posted by elijah
The economic choice is say, two different options. The three people have different wildcards, qualified, opinionated and uninformed, with which they make different decisions about that choice. That is precisely because of the wildcards.

No, the 3rd person, without an opinion and who is "not part of the debate... not influenced by it, and he has no opinion on it", does not have wildcards. He is simply there as an objective jduge, yet he is not an better person to decide than the economist.

Originally posted by elijah
In the absense of something that would make a view less valid than others, all are equally valid.

But you have never proved that. I still find the idea of complete moral or cultural relativism as laughable as complete moral or cultural absolutism. Both are extemes and both defy logic IMHO.

Originally posted by elijah
Ah jesus!!! When they going to replace the servers?

And when will yous top posting multiple posts in a row. With 1 double post, you manage 4 posts There is no need, use 1

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah


Why? The utilitarian approach to happiness requires some inherent absolutism which is illogical at best. I prefer utilitarianism tempered with relativism, resulting in the Mill Limit, where people are merely given the means by which they can be happy on their own, with no person having less opportunity than another.

I prefer a sandwich with pastrame. It doesn't make the sandwich an ethical theory.

But you have never proved that. I still find the idea of complete moral or cultural relativism as laughable as complete moral or cultural absolutism. Both are extemes and both defy logic IMHO.

It depends under which context are we talking. under a context of small decisions, there is no point in arguing or changing, since there is little utility. Of the big questions, any choice would be noticeably more or less utilitarian, and thus, if you're "relativist" you can't be utilitarian. Utilitarianism is just one of those "equally valid positions" ( ) together with the baby rapists, capitalits, Jehova's witnesses, anarcho-commies, and whatnot.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
I prefer a sandwich with pastrame. It doesn't make the sandwich an ethical theory.

A second sig line within a day, and nowhere to put it

[The Mad Monk]

How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

I first read the title as, "How can anyone be a Unitarian?"

[Az]

What do you think about the question in hand, TMM?