I disagree, their character does not matter, business incentives matter. Nothing would change, if other personalities were in charge, since profit maximization is still there.
I will defend utilitarianism, since I like it a lot and all your arguments against it are bad.
- The "tyranny of the majority" problem is a problem of direct democracy, not utilitarianism. Happiness in utilitarianism is determined not by a number of individuals, but by all individuals and perfect utility function must take into account both majorities and minorities and create consensus. This will only fail if majority and minority have directly opposed interests, but in this case overall good is still better this way (you don't want to deny majority people their rights too in favor for minorities).
- The "majority rules" fallacy is a problem of democracy overall. Every democracy system is vulnerable to this, not only utilitarianism. But then again, perfect utility function should take into account people's desire to not be fooled, so there's that.
- The "ignore individual rights" fallacy is the same as "tyranny of the majority". Utility function takes into account interests of all individuals and tries to create the best possible consensus.
- The "moral arithmetic" fallacy is the best one here, since it's actually close to the truth. You can't really create a perfect utility function, but you don't need to. You can create imperfect one and improve it later with feedback and democracy mechanisms. With time imperfect utility function will get closer and closer to perfect one. Profit maximizing utility function can't be calculated too, but corporations handle it just fine. But if you're not blind, you can see that profit maximizing utility function leads to a lot of real people suffering (climate change, wars, hunger, poverty and many many more) while leading to profit maximization (alignment problem).
"Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages."
> Holodomor had a lot of reasons, collectivisation was not the main one.
It is not right. The same "collectivisation" was tried in different countries like GDR (1953 uprising), and China, great Famine, 1959. So same strategy led to same results in different countries.
Not same, since none of them have such loud names as Holodomor and are not considered genocide anywhere.
Collectivization initially leads to decrease and then to increase. In USSR result got so bad due to collection of reasons, unrelated to collectivization. Collectivization was badly needed in USSR, since 95% of population were inefficient farmers. It was a must for later industrialization.
