Some observations… There is no discussion in your FAQ of the distinctions between utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism, or between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism, or between “partial” and “full” rule consequentialism. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/ for more on this.
Where you discuss using “heuristics” for moral decision making (rather than trying to calculate the consequences of each action), you are heading into the “partial rule consequentialism” camp. To move further into that camp, you might consider whether it is praiseworthy or blameworthy to follow usual moral rules (heuristics) in a case where breaking the rules would lead to higher expected utility. Generally it will lead to better consequences if we praise people for following the heuristics, while blaming them for departing from the heuristics. And then ask yourself whether you really want an ethical theory that says when faced with a choice between action X and Y, act X is strictly the “right” one (while Y is strictly wrong), yet X is blameworthy (while Y is praiseworthy). These are the sorts of considerations that lead to full rule utilitarianism.
Another thing you might want to cover is the objection that consequentialism is extremely demanding. Act consequentialism in particular requires well-off people to give away almost all their money to charities which have a high utility impact per dollar (sanitation imrovements in slums, malaria nets and de-worming of children in poor African countries), rather than spending the marginal dollar on themselves or their friends or family. Most versions of rule utilitarianism can avoid that problem (humans, being human, will never accept such overly demanding moral rules, and it will have very bad consequences to try and make them).
Some observations… There is no discussion in your FAQ of the distinctions between utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism, or between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism, or between “partial” and “full” rule consequentialism. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/ for more on this.
Where you discuss using “heuristics” for moral decision making (rather than trying to calculate the consequences of each action), you are heading into the “partial rule consequentialism” camp. To move further into that camp, you might consider whether it is praiseworthy or blameworthy to follow usual moral rules (heuristics) in a case where breaking the rules would lead to higher expected utility. Generally it will lead to better consequences if we praise people for following the heuristics, while blaming them for departing from the heuristics. And then ask yourself whether you really want an ethical theory that says when faced with a choice between action X and Y, act X is strictly the “right” one (while Y is strictly wrong), yet X is blameworthy (while Y is praiseworthy). These are the sorts of considerations that lead to full rule utilitarianism.
Another thing you might want to cover is the objection that consequentialism is extremely demanding. Act consequentialism in particular requires well-off people to give away almost all their money to charities which have a high utility impact per dollar (sanitation imrovements in slums, malaria nets and de-worming of children in poor African countries), rather than spending the marginal dollar on themselves or their friends or family. Most versions of rule utilitarianism can avoid that problem (humans, being human, will never accept such overly demanding moral rules, and it will have very bad consequences to try and make them).