These are necessarily qualitative decisions that utilitarianism cannot solve, because you mathematically cannot decide between non-linearly ordered objects without forming some subjective, qualitative philosophy first.
Wait… don’t all consequentialist normative ethical theories have a subjective qualitative philosophy to them? - namely what they hold to be valuable (otherwise I’m not sure what you mean by “subjective qualitative” here at all. A Google search gives me nothing for “subjective qualitative philosophy”).
Utilitarianism values happiness so whichever apple consumption leads to more happiness and well-being is recommended
Mohism values state welfare so whichever apple consumption leads leads to better state welfare is recommended
In Christian Situational Ethics values love so whichever apple consumption leads to more love in the world is recommended
Intellectualism values knowledge whichever apple consumption leads to more knowledge is recommended
Welfarism values economic well-being whichever apple consumption leads to more economic well-being or welfare is recommended
Preference utilitarianism values preference satisfaction whichever apple consumption leads to the most overall preference satisfaction is recommended
Utilitarianism is not and never has been just putting numbers on things. The numbers used are just instrumental to the end-goal of increasing whatever is valued. You might say “you can’t put a number on happiness” to which I say we have proxies and the numerical value of said proxies (e.g. calories and nutrient density[1]), when clearly reasoned on with available evidence, are useful to give us a clearer picture of what actions lead more to the end-goal of happiness maximization.
So when we say ‘you can’t put a number on everything’, it isn’t just a platitude, it’s a fact of the universe, and denying that is like denying gravity.
I kinda wanna push back here against what feels like a bizarre caricature stereotype of what it must mean to be a Utilitarian. You can be a diehard Utilitarian—live and abide by it—and do zero math, zero scary numbers, zero quantitative reasoning your whole life. All you do is vigorously try to increase happiness based on whatever qualitative reasoning you have to the best of your abilities. That and I suppose iterate on empirical evidence—which doesn’t have to include using numbers.
Useful numbers placed on virtually all food items—which like most EA numbers are estimations. But they are still nonetheless useful if said numbers can be reasonably interpreted as good proxies or correlated with what you value. i.e. they imperfectly provide us roughly linear ordering.
Wait… don’t all consequentialist normative ethical theories have a subjective qualitative philosophy to them? - namely what they hold to be valuable (otherwise I’m not sure what you mean by “subjective qualitative” here at all. A Google search gives me nothing for “subjective qualitative philosophy”).
Utilitarianism values happiness so whichever apple consumption leads to more happiness and well-being is recommended
Mohism values state welfare so whichever apple consumption leads leads to better state welfare is recommended
In Christian Situational Ethics values love so whichever apple consumption leads to more love in the world is recommended
Intellectualism values knowledge whichever apple consumption leads to more knowledge is recommended
Welfarism values economic well-being whichever apple consumption leads to more economic well-being or welfare is recommended
Preference utilitarianism values preference satisfaction whichever apple consumption leads to the most overall preference satisfaction is recommended
Utilitarianism is not and never has been just putting numbers on things. The numbers used are just instrumental to the end-goal of increasing whatever is valued. You might say “you can’t put a number on happiness” to which I say we have proxies and the numerical value of said proxies (e.g. calories and nutrient density[1]), when clearly reasoned on with available evidence, are useful to give us a clearer picture of what actions lead more to the end-goal of happiness maximization.
I kinda wanna push back here against what feels like a bizarre caricature stereotype of what it must mean to be a Utilitarian. You can be a diehard Utilitarian—live and abide by it—and do zero math, zero scary numbers, zero quantitative reasoning your whole life. All you do is vigorously try to increase happiness based on whatever qualitative reasoning you have to the best of your abilities. That and I suppose iterate on empirical evidence—which doesn’t have to include using numbers.
Useful numbers placed on virtually all food items—which like most EA numbers are estimations. But they are still nonetheless useful if said numbers can be reasonably interpreted as good proxies or correlated with what you value. i.e. they imperfectly provide us roughly linear ordering.