> In the examples, it is assumed that utility == favoring gifted son
This is a misreading of the article, which assumes utility in helping either son. The point is that while a 'pure' or 'fundamental' utilitarianism would simply say one should choose the option that maximizes the total of this utility, the priority view says there may be rational reasons for using a weighted sum of the utilities, or include additional terms.
This article should be seen in the context of moral philosophy, which (naively) might be thought of as an attempt to find a rational basis for ethics, but more realistically should probably be seen as probing the extent to which one can be rational about such matters.
> The whole thing is presented as only a matter of whether you value utility or not.
That is because it is a continuation of a discussion over the utility of utilitarianism that has been going on, in some form, since antiquity, and which picked up pace after Bentham formulated his Principle of Utility [1].
There are quite often cases where one can have a somewhat objective utility function, and this comes up repeatedly in urban planning, as it is often the case that a project that is beneficial to the community as a whole often has a downside for some (usually those living near where the project will be sited.) A purely utilitarian view almost always favors putting the burden on those who have little left to lose, and the priority view says there can be a rational basis for choosing an alternative.
Somewhat ironically, the priority view argues against what you seem to find objectionable in simple utilitarianism. Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that when utilitarianism was first proposed, it was rather radical; prior ethical notions were mostly about obeying your betters (on Earth and in Heaven.)
This is a misreading of the article, which assumes utility in helping either son. The point is that while a 'pure' or 'fundamental' utilitarianism would simply say one should choose the option that maximizes the total of this utility, the priority view says there may be rational reasons for using a weighted sum of the utilities, or include additional terms.
This article should be seen in the context of moral philosophy, which (naively) might be thought of as an attempt to find a rational basis for ethics, but more realistically should probably be seen as probing the extent to which one can be rational about such matters.
> The whole thing is presented as only a matter of whether you value utility or not.
That is because it is a continuation of a discussion over the utility of utilitarianism that has been going on, in some form, since antiquity, and which picked up pace after Bentham formulated his Principle of Utility [1].
There are quite often cases where one can have a somewhat objective utility function, and this comes up repeatedly in urban planning, as it is often the case that a project that is beneficial to the community as a whole often has a downside for some (usually those living near where the project will be sited.) A purely utilitarian view almost always favors putting the burden on those who have little left to lose, and the priority view says there can be a rational basis for choosing an alternative.
Somewhat ironically, the priority view argues against what you seem to find objectionable in simple utilitarianism. Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that when utilitarianism was first proposed, it was rather radical; prior ethical notions were mostly about obeying your betters (on Earth and in Heaven.)
[1] https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%3A_...