I suspect your definition of happiness may be different from mine. Many people throughout history have valued things other than their own direct happiness, such as the happiness of their children and relatives, their potential inclusion in the afterlife, an ascetic lifestyle, a private set of ethics, hardships for the sake of personal growth, etc.
The means at which people seek happiness varies, sure. But all those things you listed are just means to an end of happiness for the individual. This sounds "selfish" in nature, which it is, but it's a different kind of selfishness from the egocentric one we commonly refer to.
> I disagree, and a Buddhist might be offended. Buddhists seek to eliminate pain which is Utilitarian as Utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness and minimize pain. >I also do not think that maximizing utility and maximizing happiness are the same thing. Utility is actually happiness by definition: "Utility is defined in various ways, including as pleasure, economic well-being and the lack of suffering." I'm not describing hedonism as I'm not solely referring to bodily pleasures as the good.
I think "utility" would be better defined as "applicability as a means towards an end".
So "utility" is both "happiness" and "something that's useful towards the end of happiness". In other words, it's both the end and the means towards it at the same time? But that makes no sense. That's like saying the act of driving a car is both "getting someplace" and the means towards it. Not only that, but Utility is also various things that aren't at all related to how the word is commonly understood. This is like me defining a strawberry as something that could be an apple, an orange, or perhaps a coconut. To be fair, the quoted definition has a common theme. The various definitions are all positive things. But on the other hand, my example is just as good, because the various definitions are all delicious fruits!"Utility is defined in various ways, including as pleasure, economic well-being and the lack of suffering."
>So "utility" is both "happiness" and "something that's useful towards the end of happiness". No. Utility is the usefulness in achieving the end. And the end is happiness. And achieving the end well is aggregating a lot of happiness. Therefore high utility is high happiness. For that reason philosophers equate utility with happiness. It's a definition specific to philosophy. Hopefully that clears things up.
You're still equating it with both the end and the means towards it. In other words, you're still not making sense.
Here's what you originally said: But now you're saying.. something different that I can't be bothered to parse right now. I give up.utility, especially for utilitarians, is not usefulness, it's happiness. It's called utility because it's useful towards the end of happiness