> One of the most frightening new ideologies that I've heard of is "utilitarianism", a belief that justifies forms of genocide based on a crude scale of what will cause the most pleasure or pain. Utilitarianism says that it's okay to kill all mentally handicapped people just because they will probably cause others more pain than pleasure. Despite the fact that that statement is just not true, is that really a reason to commit genocide? The article I linked to below describes this belief as "the abortion-rights movement's worst nighmare". It sounds more like humanity's worst nightmare to me.
>
> M"stuff like this leaves me feeling jaded and cynnical"el

Um, no. First of all, utilitarianism isn't new. It was used to help bring more education, reason, and economic freedom to England. Bentham was the first to formally name the concept in the 1700's. His version, apparently used by the subject of the article you cited was heavily revised by JS Mill (My favorite philosopher, actually) in the 1800's to make the scale of pleasure and pain somewhat less "crude" as you call it, and to counter some of the misconceptions and misapplications of the idealogy. I doubt the author of the article has read more than a cursory summary of early utilitarian thought (Or maybe just Singer's utilitarianism, which to my knowledge is accepted by no one but Singer himself); he dangerously oversimplifies the philosophy.

A justification of infanticide or genocide is another example of a hijacking of a principle for purposes for which it was not intended. If you really wish to get an understanding of utility, read Mill's "Utilitarianism" (Actually, anything by Mill is usually an interesting read, also try the essay "On the Subjection of Women;" Mill was one of the first prominent male feminists) Until then, please hold off on making any rash judgments about the idea. (I consider myself a utilitarian to tell you the truth)

Bal "And equating late-term abortion and infanticide is not a new or radical argument; ask any pro-lifer" anthalus