A phrase I've heard that I'm trying to wrap my head around and possibly incorporate is "There is no right or wrong, only consequences" (and I do like UPB).
A problem I have with utilitarianism is how to objectively define "brings the most benefit".
Additionally utilitarianism could result in crazy laws: For sake of discussion let's assume 1) people 'waste' (i.e., not most benefit) 1/3 of the life/resources and 2) and strict enforcement of "Don't waste" costs everyone 15% of their life/resources. This results in 18% of wasted benefit. According to utilitarianism (the most people) the world population ought to then increase by 18% (so the benefits aren't wasted) and everyone should be forced to 'not waste'. This logically results in the most benefit to the most people over the longest period. Yes, I know that 'wasted resources' can also not be objectively defined, that's the irony.
That's the main reason I decided to post my thoughts on here, since I was a bit antsy with the idea as traditionally speaking utilitarianism has been the home of the socialists and statists.
@bsg That's the main reason I've been thinking about it a bit. The thing is, I think that utilitarianism is the underlying presumption of most politically-minded people. I've been thinking, increasingly, that you can't win an argument with somewhat armchair arguments (how it sounds to me, not meaning to insult people) like "Because it's a natural right!"
I think that the basis of winning an argument is showing that, with the presumptive goal between the two debators most likely being utilitarianism, your system or idea promotes the most utility for the most people.
In short, the reason I'm going for utilitarianism is because I think it's the simplest system and arguments revolving around it CAN be packaged for the average joe-schmoe.