I have a question in reguards to utilitarianism. I'll start with Rule Utilitarianism.
As far As I've seen, rule utilitarianism argues that rules that are moral lead to the greatest good among people. However, isn't that a rule in and of its self? If It is, in order to comply with its own premise it would have to be proven to provide the greatest good, but then that has to be proven to provide the greatest good, etc. In order to avoid infinite regression, the rule must be presupposed/assumed, which violates rule utilitarianism.
Then there is act utilitarianism which is that whatever action leads to the greatest happiness among people should be prefered. Isn't debating about what action leads to the greatest good an act? Does this act need to be proven to provide the greatest good before it is moral, but still, proving that requires an act. There must then be an assumption that the act of deliberating on which act leads to the greatest good is good, but this then defeats the moral premise of utilitarianism.
I dunno, just a thought.
That's pretty much it. Roderick Long has a good article here explaining why utilitarianism is praxeologically unstable (among other things)
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.