The CTAA reading was super interesting and I found it to be very insightful for a lot of different reasons. The main reason had to be how it highlighted maximizing consequentialists and their beliefs. They believe that one should produce as much happiness as possible, and I find this super important in life. I personally believe that whatever anyone does, they should do it because it makes them happy.
The universalistic maximizing consequentialist argument can be applied to a lot of life choices and arguments. If doing something – such as donating to a charity – will maximize happiness for everyone in the world and it is morally good to maximize happiness for everyone in the world, then I concur that “H” or a person should do said action. The maximizing consequentialist point of view does have a downfall, one we saw with the water pumps in DGB, where people thought that they were producing the most amount of happiness for the people in need – when in fact they were not. That being said, I think that the maximizing consequentialist argument should be one that is considered often for arguing and choices, but with sincere thought to actually produce the most happiness/good, not just assuming you are producing the most happiness/good.
I agree with you about the benefits of universalistic maximizing consequentialism and the way in which it attempts to maximize happiness for everyone in the world, but I want to add one more downfall of this point of view in addition to having false beliefs about the benefits of something. This negative is the way universalism disregards an individual’s happiness and says that no greater weight should be given to one’s own happiness. I think this makes this point of view unattainable and only short term because there is a human necessity for looking for the things that bring about one’s own happiness. This happiness can be a driving force for maximizing the happiness of others, but then that goes against the concept.