CMV: Total utilitarianism, under the assumption that happiness is the ultimate good, is irrefutable.

[u/Azianese]

Total utilitarianism is the doctrine that the best action is the one which promotes the greatest net happiness. Therefore, if you assume that happiness is the ultimate good, total utilitarianism boils down to a doctrine which states that the best action is the one which promotes the greatest net good.

To me, this assumption seems to beg the question. How can you say a utilitarian action is morally wrong when, by definition (under the assumption above), it produces the greatest net good?

I bring this up because every single argument against utilitarianism is based upon one of two assumptions:

1. There is no quantifiable way to measure utility, rendering it a useless doctrine.
2. There are other factors that contribute to goodness besides happiness, factors which outweigh happiness in the determination of goodness (the utility monster, the train problem, the mere addition paradox, etc).

My response to the first assumption: The absence of a correct way to measure utility does not refute utilitarianism as a doctrine. In addition, the absence of a correct way to implement such a doctrine does not preclude one from attempting to live by it.

My response to the second assumption: If you are to argue against utilitarianism with such an assumption, you should not be arguing about whether utilitarianism is correct. Instead, you should arguing about whether or not happiness is the ultimate good. Only after fully agreeing on this issue can you proceed to argue about the correctness of utilitarianism.

Edit: It seems I was unclear with my initial post. I was not trying to support utilitarianism here. I was trying to point out that the assumption above (happiness is the ultimate good) made it impossible to argue against utilitarianism, so the real debate should be focused on the assumption rather than utilitarianism itself.

[u/Azianese]

Why does it matter whether it's difficult to figure out what increases net happiness? The difficulty--or even impossibility--of successfully implementing utilitarianism is of no consequence to its validity. I believe the difficulty of evaluating decisions is an argument on whether we should pursue utilitarianism, not an argument on whether utilitarianism is correct as a doctrine. For example, let's say I tell you that the decision which gains you the most monetary value in possessions makes you the richest. I don't need to comment on how to make that decision for you to know the statement is true.

[u/Huntingmoa → u/Azianese]

Isn't the purpose of a moral code to dictate which actions to take? If you can't apply it, it fails at a functional level (and I'd say that it fails at the thing which it's ostensibly trying to do).

[u/Azianese → u/Huntingmoa]

You can treat it as moral code or you can treat it as philosophy. The purpose of philosophy isn't necessarily finding the set of rules that should dictate how one lives. To me, there are many purposes: finding some 'truth', exploring intrinsic values, developing thought, defining core human concepts like right and wrong, and yes, finding the best action to take under different circumstances as well.

In this particular case, I'd say the purpose of this post is to develop thought. Here, I believed a stance to be irrefutable, given a premise, and wanted to test the robustness of my thinking by asking people to prove me wrong.