> I'm suspicious of any "formula" to solve all ethical problems.
Right, I think that's what I'm mostly interested in - what if you treat utilitarianism as a guideline? If you only apply it in cases where you think most people would agree on what is "most useful", would that not lead to better decisions on average, without influencing potential hypothetical edge cases?
(I also happen to think that the most useful thing in your situations is to respect the law, and have the law say that you're not allowed to exploit the homeless person, since that also influences the amount of trust we have in other people and hence the quality of life, but that's probably less relevant for what I'm interested in now.)
If utility is simply one factor of many then we're not doing utilitarianism.
I don't think the law thing works at all. Laws can be and often are unjust. Imagine I live in a twisted society where the doctor killing patients to harvest organs is legal. Is it now ethical? This is not purely theoretical -- the people operating concentration camps in Germany weren't violating German law.
Right, I think that's what I'm mostly interested in - what if you treat utilitarianism as a guideline? If you only apply it in cases where you think most people would agree on what is "most useful", would that not lead to better decisions on average, without influencing potential hypothetical edge cases?
(I also happen to think that the most useful thing in your situations is to respect the law, and have the law say that you're not allowed to exploit the homeless person, since that also influences the amount of trust we have in other people and hence the quality of life, but that's probably less relevant for what I'm interested in now.)