1) In the mind of a perfect utilitarian, which is more satisfactory: two people with a certain amount of happiness along with two people with an equal amount of sadness, or two-thousand of the same types? Both have 0 "utility." Is there a difference?

2) Is the world's utility + or -? It seems to be dangerously negative. For example, we perceive sadness to happiness in a 5:1 ratio (too lazy to quote a source) and because of factory farming, tropical diseases, etc. as compared to happy things like weddings, occupational success, etc.. Would Armageddon actually be beneficial?

Also, a more fundamental question: why is utilitarianism correct? Is there a proof it is? If not, why do you believe in it? Faith?

My favorite argument is due to Harsanyi and Broome. It can be shown that expected utility theory + pareto principle + impartiality + risk neutrality about personal well-being --> utilitarianism. See Weighing Goods and Weighing Lives by John Broome for more detail.

1) They are different worlds. Neither is preferable.

2) I suspect +. I figure - would lead to depression, which isn't evolutionarily useful. I could be wrong. It could be that that's just when - exceeds + too far.

3) Utilitarinism and Nihilism are the only ethical systems that make any sense. If nihilism is true, it doesn't matter what I do, so I might as well assume it's false.

Utilitarinism and Nihilism are the only ethical systems that make any sense. If nihilism is true, it doesn't matter what I do, so I might as well assume it's false.

That is the best response to the question "Why is utilitarianism true?" that I have ever heard

Haha, LadyMorgana, I think DanielLC's answer is a great one not only because it's outrageous, but also because it's true!

I think, as UtilityMonster has said, a decent way to get to the utilitarian position is by saying firstly that wellbeing matters, and secondly that it doesn't make any sense to be partial about when or where wellbeing is experienced.

The world's utility? Well it's damn hard so say. But I can suggest a problem with one popular line of reasoning. People tend to estimate the zero point by picturing themselves in conversation with a person whose utility is zero. They imagine themselves asking this person whether they would rather be alive or not. But of course such a person would prefer to be alive, even if their utility was zero or marginally below zero. Why? Because of fear of death. I think the effect of fear of death can systematically bias us. It tells us that lives are more worth living than they would initially appear. Does that mean that the world's utility is negative? I think this is probably true. But even if so, it has the potential to become positive!

Ryan, you need to rubber-stamp “‘Whatever Ryan said above, I agree with it.’ – Arepo” in your sig

Although if you then could avoid statements of the form ‘Arepo disagrees with this’ and thus breaking reality, that would be handy…