Of course, and there are many things that can mitigate the problem for most common applications, but they are not really solutions to the fundamental weakness.Volenta wrote: But I'm still not convinced that utilitarianism is flawed. Utilitarianism is not per definition anti-exploitation indeed, but if you would make it possible in society to exploit when the benefits would outweigh the costs of the action itself[...]
Let's say we evaluate based on raw intelligence approximating moral value (which it does, since it parallels sentience).Volenta wrote: The utility monster is very hypothetical, so it's hard to imagine whether it really is wrong to favor the utility monster over the others.
A super intelligent evil being comes to Earth. It enjoys seeing us suffer. It's so intelligent that, by comparative magnitude, its joy at seeing us suffer should be considered greater than our misery at suffering.
Is this acceptable?
Why or why not?
The issue of opportunity cost may come up, but this is a red-herring; it doesn't present any real, functional solutions for practical application of utilitarianism (is doing something less than ideal wrong, even if it comes out in the positive?).
Utilitarians disregard this thought experiment as unrealistic (which shouldn't matter if we're talking theoretical correctness), but it isn't really; it can apply to ordinary humans as the Utility monsters of our own world.
Take the first person, the acting agent, out of the Utility equation with respect to his or her actions to determine the goodness or badness of a personal action on the world around him/her only, calculate moral relevance relative to capacity and personal benefit/sacrifice (normalize it in accordance to such).Volenta wrote: I'm not saying utilitarianism is perfect as it is right know, but I'm not aware of any better form of consequentialism.
Globally, maximize moral action, not utility.
Bye bye Utility monster.