The article omits what I always considered the best argument against utilitarianism. It's basically a cutting-off-the-branch-you're-sitting-on argument, and it's due to Bernard Williams.
1. Utilitarianism asks me to choose to save 10 strangers over my own kid, as this would maximize human happiness.
2. The bond a parent shares with their kid is among the most foundational examples of human happiness.
3. If human happiness is so flimsy that I should be willing to destroy the root of my own in the advancement some abstract ethical theory, why is human happiness worth maximizing in first the place?
1. Utilitarianism asks me to choose to save 10 strangers over my own kid, as this would maximize human happiness.
2. The bond a parent shares with their kid is among the most foundational examples of human happiness.
3. If human happiness is so flimsy that I should be willing to destroy the root of my own in the advancement some abstract ethical theory, why is human happiness worth maximizing in first the place?