This is my first attempt at a utilitarian argument!

The difficulty of "converting" people to utilitarianism intimidates me, but what about a more established philosphy with the same effect? Specifically, the application of Buddhism because it tends to (from what I know) coincide with utilitarianist application quite often.

Take this situation, a utilitarian teacher and a Buddhist teacher face off, with 150 people each to convert...

The Buddhist approach:

-He can convert 100/150 of the people (people accept Buddhism; it's very big already!)

-Buddhism is 75% utilitarian (because most of the time, they have the same idea)

Then, his overall effect is .75 times 100 which equals 75 utilitarians

The utilitarian approach:

-He can convert only 50/150 of the people (convincing people of such a tough ethical belief is, well, tough)

-Utilitarianism is 100% utilitarian (duh)

Then, his overall effect is 1 times 50 which equals 50 utilitarians

In other words, let's say "acceptability" is the probability a potential convert actually converts. Also, let's say "coincidence" if the probability an action is correct (utilitarian).

Then, if the margin of victory of Buddhism's "acceptability" over utilitarian's "acceptability" (which I believe is much lower, therefore the margin of victory is large) is greater than the margin of victory of "coincidence" of utilitarianism (which is always 100%) over "coincidence" of Buddhism (which I believe is very close to 100%, therefore than margin of victory is small), then...

Converting people to Buddhism is more utilitarian than converting people to utilitarianism!

Did that make sense at all?

The difficulty of "converting" people to utilitarianism intimidates me, but what about a more established philosphy with the same effect? Specifically, the application of Buddhism because it tends to (from what I know) coincide with utilitarianist application quite often.

Take this situation, a utilitarian teacher and a Buddhist teacher face off, with 150 people each to convert...

The Buddhist approach:

-He can convert 100/150 of the people (people accept Buddhism; it's very big already!)

-Buddhism is 75% utilitarian (because most of the time, they have the same idea)

Then, his overall effect is .75 times 100 which equals 75 utilitarians

The utilitarian approach:

-He can convert only 50/150 of the people (convincing people of such a tough ethical belief is, well, tough)

-Utilitarianism is 100% utilitarian (duh)

Then, his overall effect is 1 times 50 which equals 50 utilitarians

In other words, let's say "acceptability" is the probability a potential convert actually converts. Also, let's say "coincidence" if the probability an action is correct (utilitarian).

Then, if the margin of victory of Buddhism's "acceptability" over utilitarian's "acceptability" (which I believe is much lower, therefore the margin of victory is large) is greater than the margin of victory of "coincidence" of utilitarianism (which is always 100%) over "coincidence" of Buddhism (which I believe is very close to 100%, therefore than margin of victory is small), then...

Converting people to Buddhism is more utilitarian than converting people to utilitarianism!

Did that make sense at all?