How Does a Utilitarian Decide what is "Good" for People?
A lot of people seem to think Utilitarianism's weakness is "A Utilitarian would murder a child to save two," but that's only true as long as you don't view murder as something that is hurting the murderer as well. If the act of murder damages both murderer and murderee, then 2 people are being hurt to help one, and Utilitarianism's silver bullet is nullified.
The problem is, at that point, it kind of seems like you're right back to non-consequentialism, but with extra steps, because you've probably decided that murder hurts the murderer based on a religious or spiritual consideration, a consideration which is generally considered to be non-consequentialist.
With that in mind, I began wondering if Utilitarianism has to have some kind of non-consequentialist basis to it. Can you objectively say that pain is bad, love is good, or even that life is worth something? I believe all those things, but I haven't always, and I credit my religious background with changing my view. Is there anything that can be objectively considered good without any input from non-consequentialist philosophy?
Thoughts?