Not to mention that the first example that people always go to when trying to explain utilitarianism is always to use it to justify setting a precedent of murder, as long as doing so might feasibly produce benefits for somebody else in the future.

Plus the future is never certain, while the present is arguably more real in any moment. Consequentialist frameworks in general are basically betting away guaranteed morality in the present in exchange for possible/imagined gains in the future.

Personally I've also found that because everything is just so complicated, depending on what axioms you start with in a consequentialist perspective, you can also not only justify but make it compulsory to do literally any awful and disastrous things both to yourself and to other people.

(Plus you necessarily end up having to introduce some sort of a concept of a "causal event horizon"— How far forwards into the future you are willing and able to try to predict events in order to evaluate the consequences of actions— If you actually try to apply and use utilitarianism or any consequentialist framework— Which means that your ethics change depending on your computing power, plus you're in constant and actually agonising pain because having to always try as hard as you can to feel the consequences of future outcomes as far in advance as possible is fucking excruciating. .. or maybe that was a specific situation (but still, what use is ethics if it just mutilates you as soon as difficult questions need to be asked?))

Utilitarianism: The preferred ethical system for edgy youth, sheltered academics, idealistic extremists, and B-movie villains since the 19th century! ....I say this having previously positioned myself somewhere between those categories.

I do tend to think deontology is just delusion, and virtue is just ego, though— .... Human "philosophy", and academics: Maybe some dead old dudes being paid by Kings and Churches to sit around doing nothing but think weren't actually the best qualified to empathise with how people actually live, and understand what is the right and wrong way to do it— The incentives for sounding good in a clean and neat published paper can hardly be expected to align with the incentives of actually being applicable to the messiness of reality, can they?

Just don't hurt people, Ffs— (And define "hurt" rigorously in terms of game theory and preserved options for autonomous constructive personal growth and equitable power dynamics, epistemology and the preservation of knowledge and feeling plus metaphysics and the preservation of identity and self, and thermodynamics and the avoidance of unconsensual entropification, if you need to)— just don't hurt people; it shouldn't be that complicated..