All the cases where Utilitarism is applied "corretly" according to doubters, is where Utilitarism (at least my "interpretation" of it, please correct me if I go wrong) isn't correctly applied.

When a larger group has increased happiness on the cost of a minority. It firstly isn't the case that the following example is utilitarian where 51% population being happier because they have finger socks, while 49% of the population make the afore mentioned finger socks.

Secondly, unjust unhappiness outweighs unjust happiness by quiet a bit, when I rob someone of all his money, then the total happiness of both of us isn't equal to the total happiness if I didn't rob him.

Thridly, side effects need to be considered. The example from above where one is killed to save 5 others impact the perspective of the whole population. Happiness isn't being alive + money, there are sooo many immaterial values, including freedom (which obviously includes control over oneself), living without fear and so on. Pretty much the human rights.

When you for example take the often cited "healty guy needs to die to save 5 others via organ donation", then they only see 5 guys > 1 guy. But this is not the case! When people know that they will be killed to save others for the "greater good" without "deserving" it, then their "happiness" is drastically lower because they life in constant fear and uncertainty for themselves and their loved ones.

Also, happiness has nothing to do with succumbing to pleasure. I don't know about others, but when I don't follow my duty and obligations my happiness is lowered because I feel bad. And of course the decrease in happiness of those people who depended on me.

1. Treating moral judgments like a business ledger.

2. Permitting the sacrifice of some minority for the sake of some majority.

3. Opposing the concept of moral obligations.

4. Doing violence to people's moral sensibilities.

5. Assessing only pleasure and pain and ignoring duty and obligation.

6. Enabling people to reject certain theodicies that Metacrock likes.

Mostly, I think those who put Mao, Pol-Pot, Hitler in their places are people who did not use reason, and debated with the opposites about their actions -- they assume they are right in the first place.

Thanks for your comments. As far as I know, there's no major difference in meaning between the words "ethics" and "morals," and I've been using them interchangeably.

I'm glad to see someone put forth a system such as this while acknowledging its difficulties and shortcomings. The basis and goals underlying the system you've laid out are exactly what turned me to Theravadan Buddhism, with a skeptic's acceptance that any metaphysical model, however attractive, is fundamentally unprovable. The underlying concepts and conclusions are remarkably parallel, and it's gratifying to see someone independently reconstruct the basis of my moral beliefs with a similar eye towards the trying difficulties of any moral system.

I've wondered about a particular choice you've made here - not as criticism, but as inquiry. You've consistently used the term 'morals' to describe a system that I'm accustomed to being presented as 'ethics', and I'm curious about your decision to do so. From my experience, when they're not being used synonymously, people use the term 'ethics' to describe functional or utilitarian social principles, and 'morals' to describe authoritative or ideal principles. Why did you make this choice?

Also, I'd like to applaud your civility. It's common (and so easy!) to respond with insults or condescension when confronted with the same, or to rein it in without eliminating it. As far as I've read, though I have a great deal of catching up to do, you have taken the extra step of maintaining and extending civility, even when provoked repeatedly. It's a courtesy too rarely extended, and while there are far too many present causes for a skeptic or atheist to get riled today, I thank you deeply for offering it.

Universal Utilitarianism (UU) is meant to be a guide for people to make individual decisions and act as a moral compass for people in day to day life. An attempt at providing an objective measure people could try and use to weigh up choices.
The calculus is at a personal level, and while people may come to different conclusions, those who make a serious attempt to follow it should be guided to similar outcomes, but by no means is that guaranteed nor required in UU.

I have not seen anything in UU that says outright for instance that "lieing is morally wrong", but from my interpretation and empathy towards others, I arrive at the conclusion that lieing is generally wrong, but there will be situations which arise where I feel it may be required (and I hope I am rarely in a situation to have to deal with that).

I think The Gay Species has latched onto the Utilitarian part of UU, and I don't think anyone is advocating that all moral decisions be made for people by others. UU to me is more about providing people with a method of making those decisions for themselves and indeed encouraging people to do just that.

To me, UU seems intuitive and indeed a formalisation of a process many people go through in their day to day life, perhaps without it even being a conscious decision, just an automatic evaluation. Many people just place a differnt value on their experiences of pain/happiness compared to others.

"I wish I could say what motivated The Gay Species' bizarre and irrational hatred of utilitarianism, but I can't. I think it sufficient to note, however, that despite his repeated invocation of Hitler, Stalin and other such boogeymen, he remains unable to present any evidence whatsoever that any of these historical evildoers were utilitarians or that utilitarian reasoning endorses their actions."

I don't nessicarily agree with The Gay Species (these men weren't utilitarians in their practices), but he does have cause to fear utilitarianism as a political force. Even though said dictators weren't utilitarians themselves, the people who empowered them were.

Take the Russian Bolsheviks: the rank-and-file members had the idea that their leaders would lead them into a "worker's paradise" in which all had good-paying jobs, safe and clean work environments, and an all-round happier future: a good life for everyone (basically, they had utilitarianist ideas). Once the party leaders siezed power, they turned on the people they claimed to represent and oppressed their former constituants. The utilitarians found themselves at the mercy of the leaders they trusted to take them to "heaven."

Patterns like this can also be seen in the rise of other dictatorial regimes: Castro, Mao, Pol-Pot, etc...

Because utilitarianism has such a history of producing the opposite of what it sets out to create, I can understand his fears of this philosophy. I believe that he sees true, blue utilitarians as "useful idiots" (to steal a Soviet term) who unwittingly stump for psychopaths like Hitler or Stalin.

And, to be honest, I share some of those same exact fears (but for different reasons).