Well, I haven't been willing to take you at your word when you showed up to tell me how wrong I am based on nothing but your say-so. Sure, I'll give you that.
Were you not expecting to have to convince anyone? If that really is so, then again I have to ask, do you imagine this sort of thing normal? Are you in the habit of letting harangue stand in for conversation in ordinary life also, or is this a special occasion?
For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.
What began as a complaint about HN’s interest in Scott Alexander devolved into a prolonged, hostile, and circular argument about whether certain reproductive choices are a form of eugenics, whether that’s compatible with utilitarianism, and whether utilitarianism itself is morally bankrupt.
Neither side persuades the other, and the thread becomes more about rhetorical sparring than the original topic.
> There aren't many places online to talk about those things in a certain way without it devolving rapidly.
Now we have an illustration of precisely what that means, more or less entirely in spite of those irritated into furnishing it.
Oh, I understand why rhetoric gets a bad name. No fool ever likes being made to look foolish. That's worth doing, in public, as often as possible, with the kind of person it takes to look utilitarianism full in the face, 'repugnant conclusion' and all, and still embrace it.
> For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.
Easy, your utility function is an indicator on WWPTD (What Would a Priest of Tezcatlipoca Do)?
+1000 when your actions are in accordance with a priest of Tezcatlipoca, and -1000 when they are not.
Like string theory, you can make utilitarianism fit anything. So on its own, it is neither good nor evil.