> danger... danger...
>
> "Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is
> solely determined by its contribution to overall utility[clarify] in
> maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is
> thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an
> action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means.
> Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various
> thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus sadness or pain), though
> preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the
> satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance with
> happiness or pleasure as ultimate importance.
>
> It can be described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest
> number", though the 'greatest number' part gives rise to the
> problematic mere addition paradox. Utilitarianism can thus be
> characterized as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to ethics.
>
> Utilitarianism can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which ...

> the ends justify the means.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

>
> chazwin:
> So what?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
>
> The great flaw in Utilitarian thinking is that 'utility' cannot be
> rationally quantified.  It also works towards 'averages'...which seems to be
> a problem with most utopian concepts that deals upon normative/subjective
> principles.  Still the idea of utility has merit from a point of philosophy
> perhaps...just not application.
>
> Something seems askew when we conceptualize an NBA basketball player
> recieving tens of millions for putting a ball through a hoop, while
> teachers, policemen, and firemen recieve pitence for wages.  We also do not
> like to hear of the large profits of large corporations when we, again,
> conceptualize how their gains are 'already' gargantuan to the common man.
> Our sense of 'utlity' seems out of whack, therefore we cannot easily justify
> such things.  But one works the math, and it all starts to make more sense
> when one realizes that we reap what we sow economically...which is NOT about
> utility but about OUTPUT.  If we need to find the FAIRNESS to income
> distribution, learn about OUTPUT.  Then it all makes sense and mostly fair.
> Shaquille ONeal generates far more than he recieves for example.  And what ...

>
> "turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
> news:8eacdddb-81be-4cc2-b85a-5396f51734b4@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> danger... danger...
>
> "Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is
> solely determined by its contribution to overall utility[clarify] in
> maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is
> thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an
> action is determined by its outcome-the ends justify the means.
> Utility - the good to be maximized - has been defined by various
> thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus sadness or pain), though
> preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the
> satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance with
> happiness or pleasure as ultimate importance.
>
> It can be described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest
> number", though the 'greatest number' part gives rise to the ...

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
>
> The great flaw in Utilitarian thinking is that 'utility' cannot be
> rationally quantified. It also works towards 'averages'...which seems to
> be
> a problem with most utopian concepts that deals upon normative/subjective
> principles. Still the idea of utility has merit from a point of philosophy
> perhaps...just not application.
>
> Something seems askew when we conceptualize an NBA basketball player
> recieving tens of millions for putting a ball through a hoop, while
> teachers, policemen, and firemen recieve pitence for wages. We also do not
> like to hear of the large profits of large corporations when we, again,
> conceptualize how their gains are 'already' gargantuan to the common man.
> Our sense of 'utlity' seems out of whack, therefore we cannot easily
> justify
> such things. But one works the math, and it all starts to make more sense ...

> Sean:
> Egoism vs utilitarianism is a false dichotomy.

> How about simply being "human" and using the gifts we are each born with
> instead?