No, no. This is not utilitarianism, which would tell you that the correct division of goods, or rule for distributing prizes, is what maximizes social welfare. that of course will vary with the circumstances, so it may not be the same rule at all times and places. Moreover, there is almost no philosopher, utilitarian or not, who says tht you can utterly ignore circumstances and consequences in proposing ethical principles--not even Kant, although he DID argues that one one should ever lie. (However this is not an obvious immediate consequence of his practical philosophy.)
The idea that there are moral rules that are valid for everyone at all times and places is not stupid--it may not be right--but it does not lead to caricatures of the sort presented here, if the universality and objectivity of ethics is understood with a shred of plausibility. I mean, I can have grand fun making fun of stupid relativism, and when I attack pomo I do. But smart relativism is a hard target for objectivists like me, and smart objectivism is no less tough for relativists. It's no fun beating up on the helpless; we should pick on doctrines our own size or bigger.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.