mutton's last point/option seems best (Become an influential public figure and convert others to become utilitarians). In considering each of the proposals you guys have posted, I wonder if the proposals are too "first-order". Here's what I mean:

You could devote your life to working first-hand in a developing country, e.g. digging wells or distributing mosquito nets. Call this a "first-order" approach. Alternatively, you could devote your life to convincing people to devote their lives to working first-hand in a developing country. Call this a "second-order" approach. Alternatively again, you could devote your life to convincing people to devote their lives to convincing people to devote their lives to working first-hand in a developing country. This would be a "third-order" approach. And so on.

Presumably one could convince at least two people to devote their lives to some favored utilitarian proposal. But this alone exceeds the utility you would have produced alone (assuming a number of things, of course: that they are as able as you, that they otherwise would not have devoted their lives to the cause, etc.).

Though it might take a distinctive and abstract method, presumably one could convince one person to convince two people to devote their lives to some favored utilitarian proposal - this too would exceed the utility you would have produced alone.

If this is right - that one could multiply produced utility by convincing many to do what you would otherwise do alone - then the first-order proposals are not ideal.

Rather, this suggests a good approach would be something like what gwahir suggests: being an influential role-model. I think an inspiring ethics professor would be a good utilitarian. One would likely have a mix of second- and higher- order influence (and on far more than 2 people!) which, through the ripple effect, would produce a ton of utility.


That's my main point. In what follows I just comment on specific points in people's posts.


gwahir raises the problem of what if you're unsuccessful? Maybe you should go for some sure-fire utility? I take the root problem to apply to the individual, viz. how can I produce the most good? I don't take the problem to apply to everyone, viz. what is it that, if everyone were to do it, would produce the most good? Probably it would be bad for everyone to try and find a cure for cancer - if everyone fails, we're screwed. But since not everyone is trying to find a cure for cancer, I think it could very well be that I should, and that I should at the expense of sure-fire activities. At the individual level, a utilitarian should just do whatever activities would produce highest expected utility (we might say "regardless of each of their chances of success", but really those chances are built into the utility calculations, hence "expected").

benzss suggests maybe utilitarians should wipe out everyone, since eliminating unhappiness maximizes happiness. I'm with gwahir in thinking that this would just eliminate happiness as well. However, there might be a case to be made that there is more unhappiness than happiness in the world, and so eliminating both would be favorable. We might not find this convincing as our lives are on the whole quite fortunate, but consider the collective suffering of all those who are not as lucky as first-worlders.

simonj has us wonder whether suicide or selective mass murder would be best on utilitarian grounds. One traditional problem for utilitarians is that it seems nothing is intrinsically wrong, that anything is permitted (indeed required) if the expected utility is highest. One traditional response is that into the expected utility calculations we factor in the chance that our immoral act (e.g. framing or killing an innocent) will be discovered by the general public. Arguably while the chance can often be extremely small, the immense disutility that would result from that small chance obtaining would determine that we should not take the risk. In considering whether suicide or selective mass murder may well be best on utilitarian grounds, we should keep this caveat in mind.