utilitarianism

And yet no one has really made an convincing argument of why the conclusions of utilitarianism contradict the axioms of utilitarianism.

Learning to code and debating utilitarianism will not change anything that the author is concerned about.

I guess it wasn't clear, but I was talking about deciding if an action is moral based on good consequences is utilitarianism.

>And yet no one has really made an convincing argument of why the conclusions of utilitarianism contradict the axioms of utilitarianism.

The strongest argument against rationalist utilitarianism seems to be that people don't like the cognitive dissonance it imposes on hypocrites.

Rule utilitarianism has some things in common with deontology, but it's quite different in others.

Yes, it's the sort of thing that makes people go to second-order utilitarianism.

You get taught various philosophical ethics systems (e.g., utilitarianism) and then examine a situation, a proposed action and whether that action is ethical.

Deciding actions based on consequences is utilitarianism, which is only one ethical system.

For the record, I'm not an advocate of utilitarianism, if that's part of this discussion.

That in real-life AI, they don't use simplistic utilitarianism.

Deciding actions based on consequences is consequentialism, not utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is simply a form of consequentialism which can be (kinda sorta) reduced to "an action is ethical if it maximizes society's global utility function." Well, except for rule utilitarianism, which on one level is anti-consequentialist (though on other levels it's still deeply consequentialist).

Utilitarianism say: "I should do it only if the overall sum of happiness will not decrease".

I also have no idea where you get "millions of dead ugly" applied to utilitarianism.

And then when you try to tell someone to stop doing it, they look at you funny and say, "Why?" Utilitarianism and relativism lead to tyranny.

Utilitarianism without rigor breaks down, almost inevitably.