The problem with utilitarianism

Considering my posts on game theory, epistemology, one might think I'm sympathetic to Utilitarianism as a fundamental moral philosophy. But I'm not!

The reason is basically the trolley problem:

Uilitarianim is pretty easy when it is a large abstract problem. For example, if you have to choose a public health policy that decreases mortality by 0.1% on 1M and another than decreases mortality by 0.1% on 5M people, of course you would choose the latter. But this quickly breaks down as you leave the domain of business or economics. What about if one group is your family and the other is strangers. Would you start giving multipliers like 1 friend is worth 3 strangers? Such calculations are abhorrent. 

Now let's take not being abhorrent as axiomatic for a fundamental moral philosophy. Not in a prescriptive way. I just mean, here we are, and we do deal with good and bad. How do we do it? What do we really use as our deepest foundation? 

When you get down to it, it is the golden rule: Do to others as you would have others do to you. It is not a coincidence that versions of this principle appear not just in Christianity but throughout the history of human wisdom. My favorite (hat tip to Nassim Taleb) is the converse, aka silver rule: don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. The silver rule, because it applies before action, is more fundamental.

The "greater good" abstraction generally works up to a limit, but if you stick to utilitarianism all the way, you get dystopian outcomes (I'm looking at you "Effective Altruism"). The real foundation of human morality is the silver rule.