Less Utilitarian Than Thou

Argues that he, an avowed utilitarian, is actually LESS willing to break sacred rules for the greater good than most non-utilitarians. The first list -- things non-utilitarians routinely accept but he opposes (banning 'misinformation', mandatory schooling-as-family-separation, spinning narratives to prevent 'panic', disruptive protests, shaming/doxxing the 'wrong side') -- are all bright-line violations justified by a supposed greater good. The second list -- things he gets CALLED utilitarian for (paid organ donation, earning-to-give, voluntary embryo selection, cutting deadly pharma regulation, x-risk focus) -- barely involve rule-breaking. His diagnosis: people are repulsed by CALCULATING about morality (mixing the sacred with profane math), and reach for 'doing evil for the greater good' as a legible label even when the calculated act isn't evil, while ordinary narrative-spinning/ideology-promotion feels normal and escapes the charge.

Quality 72 · Strong. Strong, upper end. A sharp, concise meta-ethics inversion (utilitarians break fewer sacred rules than their critics) plus a genuinely insightful diagnosis (the revulsion is at moral calculation, not at the acts). Held just below Excellent for brevity.

Claude’s paradigm shift 52 · Moderate. Notable. Both the inversion and the 'repulsed-by-calculation' explanation are fresh, non-obvious framings of a familiar debate.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. Minor. EA / meta-ethics discourse; no material reach. Within-niche.