Greene's Arguments Against Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, as Greene suggests, is a splendid idea for metamorality. Greene summarized utilitarianism in three words: Maximize happiness impartially. These three words also identify the three key concepts that Greene considers for utilitarianism. “Maximize”, compared to maximizing the value of a mathematical function, implies that there are constraints, scarcity, limitations, and trade-offs. . . All things considered, the largest happiness we can get out of an aggregate community. “Happiness” is what Greene considered to be the common currency for values. It is the answer to “what really matters”. 169. Following that, “impartiality” answers “who really matters?”: everyone. Greene says utilitarianism doesn’t mean “everyone is equally happy”,
This “demanding” argument (argument 1) can be summarized as such.

Argument 1: 1. Utilitarianism guides actions to maximize happiness impartially within the society. 2. What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? For one person to donate 100 dollars to a charity (that for example feeds homeless people) will generate more happiness than they spend it on a nice suit (given they have clothes to wear already).

So, a perfect utilitarian would forsake everything you want out of life and turn it into a happiness
However, the term “metamorality” is not about the “absolute truth”. As mentioned by Greene at the very start of the book, metamorality is “a global philosophy that can adjudicate between competing moralities.” (p.15) The creation of utilitarianism was never to strictly guide every individual action, but to extract something common and shared from all different sets of morality. In other words, the object of utilitarianism is the “guidance to individual actions” rather than “individual actions”. I would not call utilitarianism a set of moralities, but a set of moralities to a set of moralities. Understanding the object of utilitarianism, let’s then take a look at argument 1. Premise is obviously mistaken. The problem here is the intention to use a macro theory on unitary components. Consider any theory or argument in macroeconomics and apply it to a microeconomics situation (a specific investor or a company). We could make plenty of arguments like argument 1 that makes us feel “uncomfortable” and “unnatural”. In response to argument 1, Greene appeals to logos and pathos with vivid words like “flesh-and-blood humans” to try to convince us that argument 1 is absurd, and since utilitarianism will not tell us to do things that are absurd, argument 1 is not what utilitarianism is saying. This reasoning makes logical sense to me, but I believe it is trivial considering what utilitarianism is guiding (the guidance, not the action). By