So what exactly do you multiply when you shut up and multiply? Can it be anything else then a function of the consequences? Because if it is a function of the consequences, you do believe or at least act as if believing your #4.
In which case I still want an answer to my previously raised and unanswered point: As Arrow demonstrated a contradiction-free aggregate utility function derived from different individual utility functions is not possible. So either you need to impose uniform utility functions or your “normalization” of intuition leads to a logical contradiction—which is simple, because it is math.
1. In this whole series of posts you are silently presupposing that utilitarianism is the only rational system of ethics. Which is strange, because if people have different utility functions Arrow’s impossibility theorem makes it impossible to arrive at a “rational” (in this blogs bayesian-consistent abuse of the term) aggregate utility function. So irrationality is not only rational but the only rational option. Funny what people will sell as overcoming bias.
2. In this particular case the introductory example fails, because 1 killing != − 1 saving. Removing a drowning man from the pool is obviously better then merely abstaining from drowning an other man in the pool.
3. The feeling of superiority over all those biased proles is a bias. In fact it is very obviously among your main biases and consequently one you should spend a disproportional amount of resources on overcoming.