I agree that my stance resembles Utilitarianism within certain contexts, for example, within the legal system of a healthy community.

On the other hand, I think the general correctness of Utilitarianism is essentially a tautology, because, for example, if we ask "what's good?", the answer, at some level, will always be "to maximize what's good". But the hard part is in determining what is "good" in the first place.

And that's where I'm not sure Utilitarianism provides a clear enough direction, and is perhaps the gap I'm trying to fill with this article. As I suggested towards the end, I do think that most people's best interest lies in contributing to a society where pretty much everyone flourishes. But what I've argued here is that the actual assessment of the state of the world must still ultimately be left up to individuals to judge for themselves - i.e. there isn't any privileged "top down" perspective to define a single "best world" for all sentient perspectives.

Thanks for reading and commenting!