

I’m not seeing the reasoning behind your assertions.
You say:
As an individual? Probably not, no. But countries and organizations ought to determine their laws and/or policies based on utilitarianism, yes.
Individuals will probably follow the moral codes of their communities, and only actually use utilitarian principles when it’s time to evaluate whether the rules are working as intended.
Which is a statement of your beliefs near as I can tell, but not the reasons for them. I assume you hold the opinion:
countries and organizations ought to determine their laws and/or policies based on utilitarianism, yes.
In relations to the idea that this is more grounded and or coherent. Which you believe to be true despite it being essentially impossible to actually do the nuts and bolts thing of utilitarianism because of the enormous complexity of the world and the difficulty in predicting the future; the criticism I gestured at.
But, why? You say later that it’s closer to good than deontological or virtue ethics based approaches (the other 2 major ones). Well actually you say all but lets focus on the big 3 to avoid getting lost in the weeds.
Again, I’m quite sympathetic personally to consequentialist ethics and utiliarianism but you haven’t really given any reasons why it’s better or more reliable or closer to actual moral facts or whatever your reason for believing in it is. I’ll note, referencing my comment again, that philosphers are really evenly split between the big 3 frameworks.
Why is it that you believe it is more reliable, and should be used on a societal level, despite the difficulties in actually using it?
All the best, thanks for running this while you have.
It seems like lemmy mostly brought you stress and misery so I hope you find something more rewarding to do.