I think that philosophy is too esoteric and it appeals only to those who consider themselves to be 'intellectuals' or academics. One of the problems with philosophy is that people do not accept philosophical propositions because they are logically defended, not matter how good of a job the philosopher does, they only accept certain views or ideas because they are emotionally receptive to those ideas. I could present a logical, reasonable argument for veganism but if someone does not feel empathy for non-human animals or their addiction to meat/animal products overrides that empathy, then I am wasting my time. Art is a better vehicle for moral commentary than philosophy is because art makes a direct appeal to the heart, philosophy tries to reason with the intellect but the intellect goes where the heart tells it to.

If you want to promote a certain world view, you're better off using stories since stories simulate what philosophy prepares you for : real life scenarios where philosophical ideas can actually be applied.

I think it's usually best to just be whatever pays the most and then donate. I suppose if you're particularly eloquent you might be able to convert people well.

DanielLC, I disagree! I think that donating money is often better than acting directly. However, I think that communicating one's ethical position to others is far better than donating money. This is because if you are a missionary of utilitarianism, you only need to convert one unethical person to a wholly utilitarian position to justify your entire career. If you should achieve more than one conversion, then you may net a far greater total donation to charity than you would by donating yourself!

Ubuntu, I agree with your general point. People often allow their rational conclusions to be lead by emotional thinking. I agree that we need good philosophers to be more persuasive and less philosophical! However, I think it might be going a bit far to suggest we persuade others of philosophy through fine art. What I personally find most persuasive is an intermediate variety of non-fiction. But that's just me!

Out of all the people who write as an occupation, what are the chances of being seriously influential? Arbitrarily, I bet they're small. But if you're particularly convincing, that can change!

in most cases, from my limited knowledge, I bet rising to a powerful position in society (wealth, friends, politics, religion, etc.), and THEN communicating through writing or whatever means, is the best way to maximize your influence, maximize the spread of your ideas, and therefore maximize utilitarian actions.

There is no reason that you couldn't wite a utilitarian version of the 'Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'

I was going to start a separate thread but I guess there's no need to. Are there any novels where (hedonistic) utilitarianism is a common theme?

To be honest, I just like fiction more than non-fiction. Philosophy is interesting but once you've established the basic points, there's only so much more you can say.

Some intriguing comments.
Please forgive my hypocrisy in advocating dynamic and vivid non-fiction writing, because doutbless these following words might not be at the place to which I am directing others.
I believe that philosophical work can be made more persuasive by its clarity, vividness and vitalised language. I think that a brilliant model that we philosophers should use is the best of Richard Dawkins's writing. His work is vivid, clear and dynamic. I am far from an expert in his field, or in science in general, but to my knowledge there have been greater scientists than Dawkins, and yet he is one of the 3 most respected academics in the world. This has much to do with the force of his words.
(Also, Schopenhauer's Aphorisms are strengthened by their poetic quality as much as by the ideas behind them.)
For those who strive to get the reader's blood flowing with their philosophical writing, at least for those who have not already studied works on creative writing or writing style, from my studies in English Literature, I can recommend as starting points George Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language':

http://mla.stanford.edu/Politics_&_English_language.pdf

and Ted Hughes's 'Poetry in the Making' is a useful tool to help one, for example, organise the imagery that emerges from one's words. Also, Hughes helps you use words whose side-meanings work together and help you make your point:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_nos ... the+making

Another useful tip I read from Gateway online about CV writing of all things, was to vary the words that you use. Although it is important to control the side meanings of words, and to not be pretentious, it is also important to vary one's vocabulary. This is perhaps what T. S. Eliot means in his 'Four Quartets' when he mentions his search for words that are 'neither diffident nor obtuse'.
Notice too, the freshness of those words, because we don't hear those every hour. We philosophers are after all trying to make people see things as if for the first time, see things afresh. The brain also works harder when it meets things with which it is unfamiliar. So we should be trying to engage the brains of our readers by using fresh language.
For us realists, we might also look to one of the most admired writers in modern English, Philip Larkin, for inspiration, who strived to portray 'an unpretentious fidelity to experience' in his poetry. Despite his pessimism, Larkin engaged readers because he would resurrect the positive, for example, through negatives. For example, he ressurrects the idea of youth coming again to adults in a poem that is pessimistic below the surface. But he ressurects it through the negative phrase 'can't'. He says, 'It can't come again.' Of being young; that it can't come again, but is for others undiminished somewhere. This might be useful for us animal welfarists, whose imagery can sometimes be bloody.

Furthermore, a certain type of diplomacy is also persuasive. For example, even, or perhaps especially, when arguing with those with whom we fundamentally disagree, if we give credit where it is due for any point of theirs with which we agree, our Ethos will benefit ('Ethos' in the Aristotlian sense). In sales, even when the prospect is being confrontational, aggresssive or downright rude, in order to persuade the prospect into buying the product, some salesman will maintain a jovial and lighthearted manner. Contrary to what one might think, rather than looking belittled, the salesman thereby looks extraordinarily clever and socially sophisticated compared to the aggressive prospect.
On the logic course at Glasgow Uni, my tutor mentioned that the most important points to be polite are at the start and end of an essay or talk.

An important point to mention, although Orwell advocates using everyday words, I think he is mistaken. We hear them so often that they lose some of their force. Who is the most read writer in English of all time? Shakespeare. The size of the vocabulary in his work dwarfs that of most other writers. Goethe is the most well read high brow German author of all time. Again, the vocabulary in his work too dwarfs that of most other writers.
If you doubt this, you might wish to see for yourselves through experimenting with your word choice.

I should add that Hughes's 'Poetry in the Making' is a very short book that was written for primary school children and adults; it will not eat up much of anyone's essay writing time, and he will help you pick words that have purpose, direction and energy.

Ah, what motivates me?
I realise that I have momentarily changed the subject from 'Should we be writing fiction or non-fiction?' to 'How can we give our non-fiction writing clout?' One reason for my doing so is that most of us who write on this sight are in the habit of philosophical writing and already have an audience in tutors, lecturers, students and Felicifia readers. So, judging from our past behaviour, most of us will be able to lift the persuasive quality of our writing, as we have done thus far from when we were freshmen thinkers; whereas, if none of us have a fiction audience yet, few us will write fiction for an audience.
Furthermore, the much philosophy is difficult to read. There are some philosophical works whose arguments I wished to read, but whose stylistic weakness and lack of clarity stopped me from finishing reading the works. I also have non-philosopher friends who have dipped into philosophical reading, only to dip out again due to the density and lack of bite in its contents. So, if philosophers are looking for a wider audience, we must make our ideas easier to read. Furthermore, although for quickness I articulate my ideas haphazardly on this site, since I have an MA Honours in English Literature, and since I was taught creative writing by a published poet, writing style is one of my core competences. The above ideas not mine, but those of the most highly accomplished writers. They have been written by top word-craftsmen and women and are worth sharing.
One stylistic technique that Hughes does not mention in 'Poetry in the Making', is using an adjective that brings the noun it modifies to life. An example that we have seen above is speaking of a 'fresh' phrase. A phrase cannot be literally 'fresh'. How can a phrase be 'fresh', when it is neither tactile nor living? It is an abstract noun. It has no gravity. So to make it tactile, more vivid and vitalised, we can modify it with 'fresh'.
Pete Doherty uses another enriching adjective when he writes in his blog 'the moon, elegant, and I.' This is of course personification. So if we have the chance to use these techniques in our philosophy, we can create a more excited sensation in our readers. Of course in philosophy, we might have to use abstract nouns often, nor should we sacrifice ideas for imagery, but we should seek to use more lifelike imagery and language or at least vitalise our abstract nouns with adjectives that usually modify tactile or living nouns.
Again, Schopenhauer's Aphorisms are rich with imagery and have lasted centuries.

Have any felicifa users or your peers tried to express your ideas in fiction?

Richard Pearce wrote: We hear them so often that they lose some of their force. Who is the most read writer in English of all time? Shakespeare.

Ahem... [citation needed]

Who's the most read English writer for the amount of time they've been around to be read? Dan Brown or JK Rowling.

What's far more important than the words you use is how you use them:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

Arepo says:

"What's far more important than the words you use is how you use them:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself."

Should we then be writing philosphical points in iambic tetrameter?

To put my last point in a less cryptic way, in 'This Be the Verse', Larkin doesn't have to use a rich vocabulary, because he uses other means of entertaining us. He uses the split between the pessimistic subject (how parents fuck up their children) and the jaunty tone (the iambic tetrameter which is not only upbeat in metre but also uplifting because the alternate rhymes come round quickly with the metre being short). There are many ways to engage the reader: metaphor, simile, and personification being common ones. These appear somtimes in brilliant academic philosophical works. To my limited reading, in brilliant academic philosophical works, rhyme and metre do not appear. If you wish to try writing philosophy in metre and with rhymes, I hope you get a good readership. If, on the other hand, you do not wish to try that, apt and rich word choice will help you stimulate your readers instead.

Should we then be writing philosphical points in iambic tetrameter?

It’s not a bad idea, perhaps –
some think us rule-obssessed gents. We
must then avoid a single lapse,
and hence expunge inconsistency.