How come every ethical argument?

Question

How come every time someone argues against utilitarianism they appeal to emotion or start quoting some religious text, not reason? Is there really no good argument against the greatest good for the greatest number?

Answer 1

Who defines "good?"

Answer 2

The greatest good for the greatest number is what Marx advocated through the theft of the profits of production and then given to those who produce less. But it also means the middle class would have their "profits" stolen in order to give to those less productive than themselves. Eventually, no one produces and everyone starves.
This is was the truth of Soviet Russia.
This was the purpose of the writing of Atlas Shrugged. Marx's ideas are vigorously fought against in that book, and short of a Soviet America, she invented a very realistic scenaria for our nation if we ever adopted Marx's platitude: From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
We actually live by that platitude, now, in this country. The only thing preventing us from taking the final step is that the Republicans hold back the Democrats from implimenting it, as their only means of keeping any power at all.
Otherwise, Democrats and Republicans are the same collectivist lot.
No, there is every good reason AGAINST what you wish for.

Answer 3

Should 60 percent of the population be allowed to kill, torture, or enslave the other 40 percent? Should 90 percent of the population be allowed to kill, torture, or enslave the other 10 percent? How do you define "the greatest good for the greatest number"? What restrictions would you put on the rights of the majority? What safeguards would you put in place for the rights of various minorities?

Answer 4

Would you give up several of your body parts (and face certain death) to save several peoples lives even though you are a healthy human? Utilitarianism seems to suggest that you should.