Utilitarianism (Rachels, Chapter 7 & 8)

• The idea of morality being "just the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in this world" rather than a faithfulness of abstract rules is, in a way, an abstract rule. I would argue that happiness isn't something that can be objectively measured, so there is no way to defined what will and won't increase the overall happiness of the world. Happiness has to be see as an abstract idea, so, by nature of that, morality is still a faithfulness to an abstract. 
• When I read philosophical ideas and theory, I always have a really hard time understanding the practicable use of such things. While Bentham's theory seems great in thought, I find it hard to see this ever being truly adopted in real life. I understand that Utilitarianism is defining how humans ought act rather than do, but  a total disregard of practical application makes any conversation not worth having/ I can't fathom a world where Utilitarianism could be applied—I don't think a Utilitarian could exist in our current idea of the world. Virtually any action with even a hint of self-interest would have to be completely disregarded, and the value judgment of what will increase the overall happiness of any given actions seems far too arbitrary. 
• This criticism is something that I believe Ethical Egoism has found a solution for. Ethical Egoism relies on a person's ability to only seek their self interest, and I would argue that most people can do that. Obviously, there are counterpoints to that statement, but, overall, I believe it's fair to say most people can actively operate under Ethical Egoism with little falter. That said, I can see how a human can be expected to objectively weigh their actions and, as defined by Stuart, take the optimal route for all of mankind. That expectation is rooted unbelievably in hypothetical to the point where I don't how this can be an accepted philosophical idea of morality. This criticism is even more solidified in that Utilitarianism was very much created to exist out of the realm of hypothetical thought.
• With all the criticism that I have lodged Utilitarianism, the subtraction of religion from the idea of morality was a very, very significant stepping stone in Philosophy. I don't believe that an objective morality can be argued, and all religions inadequately define objective morality. Therefore, Bentham's radical aversion to the morality standard in his time is something that is greatly admirable. That said, I don't believe Bentham did something much different than religion when it comes to create a system or morality. A lot of flaw that I would give to religion are apparent in Utilitarianism.
• I have a condemnation for Rachels' praise of Utilitarianism for it's lack of "inflexible rules." You can't have a sound philosophical theory that is bound by flexible rules. If there is any room for flexibility in a moral system, all legitimacy of that system is immediately squandered. If flexibility is allowed in moral systems, flexibility needs to be allowed in all moral systems, regardless if the general population is comfortable with this flexibility existing. Utilitarianism seems to tend itself to a lot of "flexible rules" which I would, more cynically, define as "inconsistencies." I find it hard to legitimize a system of morality that has these holes in them. From my thought process, Utilitarianism can't exist without the belief of objective morality.
• For instance, I think most people would advocate for the better treatment of sentient life. It's fair to say that most people would find it morally wrong to kill or torture an animal. That said, most of the world is not vegan. In fact, a very small percentage of the world is vegan. However, I don't think people would take kindly to criticisms of their "immoral actions." I believe people turn a blind eye to the slaughtering of millions of animals for their dinners, but will turn around and condemn a psychopath for killing a house cat (assuming that the cat is not property of another person). 
• I believe both vegans and non-vegans can exist under the scope of Utilitarianism because both sides can argue that their actions increase the happiness in the world (i.e. The happiness someone gets from eating a burger  outweighs the loss of that from the cow or vise versa), and having such radically different ethical views fall under the same veil seems silly. That is why Utilitarianism's "flexibility" is a flaw, not a strength. When defining a moral system, creating objective axioms is necessary (weather or not such an axiom is objective in the sense of being truly immoral or moral is irrelevant as it is impossible to say). 
• I believe that the taking of ones life is an absolute right to any person, but I have a hard time rationalizing this idea practically. Someone should be able to take their own life, but I don't believe that someone should be able to take someone's life upon request to do so. I don't believe these are one in the same. However, if someone is physically unable to end their own life, I am not sure how to work around this issue. Overall, I agree with the conclusion of the utilitarians when it comes to euthanasia, but for radically different premises. 
• I write these blogs "procedurally," and a lot of my criticisms of Utilitarianism were addressed later in chapter 8. Specifically, the idea that Utilitarianism is too demanding encompasses my whole gripe with the moral system.  
• The entire paragraph about "fanciful" examples gets me whirled up. Regardless if the utilitarian wants to acknowledged it or not, there are arguments to be made about the "fanciful" examples that are posed in 8.2-8.4. The issue is not with the example itself, but with the conclusion that COULD be found when using a utilitarian thought process. The fact that these uncomfortable conclusions can be found as a result of using the axioms defined by utilitarian show a flaw in the system itself—not the examples! 
• Act-Utilitarianism is not something that I have heard of prior to this reading, and I found that it addresses most of the surface level objections that I have with Classical Utilitarianism. While happiness is still an axiom that is ill-defined, Act-Utilitarianism seems to plug some of the obvious holes. 
• Act-Utilitarianism also seems to acknowledged the idea of non-objective morality that Utilitarianism, seemingly undeniably, fell pray to. With that being a huge part of my aversion to Classical Utilitarianism, find Act-Utilitarianism to be a very solid moral system upon initial inspection.