Is restricting the flow of ideas intrinsically bad

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Explain why it is a strawman, fucktard.

Because my claim was not "if communism actually worked as advertised and produced Marx's fantasy utopia, then utilitarianism would endorse it!" Rather, it was that utilitarianism can be used to justify actions that most ethical systems would consider immoral as long they increase the net happiness of soceity. However, looking back at my inital post, I can see how you reasonably could have come to that conclusion.

No they don't. You have utterly failed to explain how society is made happier and more prosperous by such actions.

Soceity is nothing but an arbitrary grouping of individuals- assuming the "right" group of individuals is in the majority then each of my examples can be justified on happiness grounds.

outlawing atheism/homosexuality/minority religions

Any theocracy with a very large religious majority (lets assume that it is capitalist to eliminate the prosperity part of the equation). The majority would expirence a larger subjective "happiness increase" then the minorities "happiness decrease".

brainwashing

Again we can use a theocracy with a very large religious majority- the net increase of happiness would favor the brainwashing of "deviants" who go against the will of the "holy book of whatever". One could even argue that there would be objective benefits to making people think that "God A is better then God B", instead of vise versa, in relgiously divided soceities.

and while it's easy to make fun of the word "happiness" as a measure of anything, its polar opposite is depression, which is a clinical term; no one would object to reducing levels of clinical depression in society).

So in other words- you would have absolutly no objection to a government secretly medicating public drinking water to lower levels of clinical depression. Afterall- that would be a positive thing under utilitarianism.

Why does it have to be, fucktard? I'm just pointing out that the linchpin of your argument is moronic; you are seriously trying to argue that ethics systems which damage human society, cause harm, increase levels of depression, poverty, misery, etc. may in fact be superior ...

I've never claimed any such thing- I've merely been criticising what I see as a flaw in the utilitarian ethical system/outlook.

[Darth Wong]

Explain why it is a strawman, fucktard.

Because my claim was not "if communism actually worked as advertised and produced Marx's fantasy utopia, then utilitarianism would endorse it!" Rather, it was that utilitarianism can be used to justify actions that most ethical systems would consider immoral as long they increase the net happiness of soceity. However, looking back at my inital post, I can see how you reasonably could have come to that conclusion.

No they don't. You have utterly failed to explain how society is made happier and more prosperous by such actions.

Soceity is nothing but an arbitrary grouping of individuals- assuming the "right" group of individuals is in the majority then each of my examples can be justified on happiness grounds.

Bullshit, since the misery (ie- discrimination, violence, economic hardship, etc) inflicted upon the oppressed individuals is objective and therefore far outweighs any subjective pleasure derived by the sadistic members of the majority. What part of this do you need to hear a THIRD fucking time? Objective vs Subjective; it's not that fucking complicated, you worthless trolling palm-fucker.

and while it's easy to make fun of the word "happiness" as a measure of anything, its polar opposite is depression, which is a clinical term; no one would object to reducing levels of clinical depression in society).

So in other words- you would have absolutly no objection to a government secretly medicating public drinking water to lower levels of clinical depression. Afterall- that would be a positive thing under utilitarianism.

Nice strawman, trolling fucktard. Since those medications must be prescribed because they can seriously fuck people up, they would make things WORSE, not better. You keep doing this: inventing situations where something would cause lots of problems in order to pretend that an outcome-based ethics system is a bad thing, when in reality the nature of outcome-based ethics systems is to avoid such idiotic situations.

Why does it have to be, fucktard? I'm just pointing out that the linchpin of your argument is moronic; you are seriously trying to argue that ethics systems which damage human society, cause harm, increase levels of depression, poverty, misery, etc. may in fact be superior ...

I've never claimed any such thing- I've merely been criticising what I see as a flaw in the utilitarian ethical system/outlook.

What flaw? Every time you try to point out a flaw, you resort to strawman distortions of utilitarianism where subjective values outweigh objective harm or where destructive acts are somehow recommended. Are you deliberately trying to be a lying troll, or does it just come naturally?

[Nova Andromeda]

Modern forms of Utilitarinism don't use just happiness. They have a list of important things which are good, then it looks at the consequences of the action. The action which brings the best mix of these good things is consigered the best action.

--Who are you (or anyone besides myself) to say what is good for me? Do you have some evidence I don't know what I want? You do realize that by the very act of saying something is good you are using some criteria to judge that thing don't you? I might have an entirely different criteria which is in conflict or uncorrelated with your criteria and nevertheless defines what is "good" for me. The same can be said for anyone. The only way I can think of to get around this problem is to forget about picking some limitied set of global criteria I happen to like (such as happiness), go directly to the individuals in society, figure out what their criteria are, and then use that knowledge to design a system that maximizes people ability to fulfill their goals.

[Darth Wong]

Modern forms of Utilitarinism don't use just happiness. They have a list of important things which are good, then it looks at the consequences of the action. The action which brings the best mix of these good things is consigered the best action.

--Who are you (or anyone besides myself) to say what is good for me? Do you have some evidence I don't know what I want?

Obviously, you suffer from a severe reading comprehension problem. Each person can decide for himself what makes him happy; these are subjective judgements. That's why utilitarianism places greater emphasis on objective harm. But while you cannot determine what will necessarily make someone happy, you can tell if societal levels of depression are going up or down. Look at suicide rates, for example.

You do realize that by the very act of saying something is good you are using some criteria to judge that thing don't you? I might have an entirely different criteria which is in conflict or uncorrelated with your criteria and nevertheless defines what is "good" for me. The same can be said for anyone. The only way I can think of to get around this problem is to forget about picking some limitied set of global criteria I happen to like (such as happiness), go directly to the individuals in society, figure out what their criteria are, and then use that knowledge to design a system that maximizes people ability to fulfill their goals.

You are obviously assuming that utilitarianism claims everyone wants the same thing, when no one has ever suggested such a thing. Next time, why don't you try responding to the points people are making instead of putting words in their mouths?

[Nova Andromeda]

Modern forms of Utilitarinism don't use just happiness. They have a list of important things which are good, then it looks at the consequences of the action. The action which brings the best mix of these good things is consigered the best action.

--Who are you (or anyone besides myself) to say what is good for me? Do you have some evidence I don't know what I want?

Obviously, you suffer from a severe reading comprehension problem. Each person can decide for himself what makes him happy; these are subjective judgements. That's why utilitarianism places greater emphasis on objective harm. But while you cannot determine what will necessarily make someone happy, you can tell if societal levels of depression are going up or down. Look at suicide rates, for example.

--What people want (and by extension wish to avoid) is entirely subjective (duh...), but that doesn't mean there are no objective methods to figure out what those subjective desires are. For example, an obvious reason to think depression and suicide are not what people want (in general) is that given the choice people don't chose depression or suicide, nevertheless, depression and suicide are not invalid desires (regardless of whether you think person X should remain undepressed and forgo committing suicide).
-BTW, does Utilitarianism place a greater emphasis on "objective harm" than it does on "objective good?" If so, why (one objective quantity is just as good as the next if it relates to a person's desires)? If not, why bother metioning "harm" over other pertinent "objective" quantities.
-I'm assumming happiness = "b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience" which seems to agree with untilitarianism = "1 : ... specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Both definitions are from merian webster.

You do realize that by the very act of saying something is good you are using some criteria to judge that thing don't you? I might have an entirely different criteria which is in conflict or uncorrelated with your criteria and nevertheless defines what is "good" for me. The same can be said for anyone. The only way I can think of to get around this problem is to forget about picking some limitied set of global criteria I happen to like (such as happiness), go directly to the individuals in society, figure out what their criteria are, and then use that knowledge to design a system that maximizes people ability to fulfill their goals.

You are obviously assuming that utilitarianism claims everyone wants the same thing, when no one has ever suggested such a thing. Next time, why don't you try responding to the points people are making instead of putting words in their mouths?

--I must have misread "Modern forms of Utilitarinism don't use just happiness. They have a list of important things which are good ... " which seems to state quite clearly that even modern forms of Utilitarinism have a list of criteria by which things are judged good. Unless that list includes everything people want (which can be objectively determined to a large extent) the "best mix" of those things won't necessarily maximize people's ability to fulfill their desires. In this case I am not "... assuming that utilitarianism claims everyone wants the same thing ...." I'm demonstrating (or attempting to demonstrate) it doesn't account for all pertinent desires in society.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Modern Utilitarianism comes in several forms, but the hedonistic utilitarianism is one brand, and it's not the most popular, altthough it is still used within the structure of modern Utilitarianism.

Preference Utilitarianism is another brand, and both can be put under Rule or Act Utilitarianism.

So in other words- you would have absolutly no objection to a government secretly medicating public drinking water to lower levels of clinical depression. Afterall- that would be a positive thing under utilitarianism.

If you were to do this, it would mostly be immoral according to modern versions of Rule utilitarianism. What you have to do is not just look at the short term benefits of something. You have to look at the benefits and harms longterm. Ask yourself? What will the negative side-effects be health wise? How much will the procedure cost? If people found out, would it create a panic? Lawsuits?

From a people's perspective, you would have to ask: what will happen if you give the government the power to drug the people without their knowledge via water supply? This will and can be abused, thus it would cause too great a risk, be costly, and mostly have side effects not worth treating the depression, when you have other means by which you can combat depression which are less potentially damaging.



Utilitarianism focuses on long term vs short term harm prevention and benefit maximization. Benefits are things that make people happy by creating a healthy, relatively safe, partly efficient, fun community from which people can grow, learn, and function.

As Mr. Wong mentioned: Utilitarianism puts objective harm and benefit over subjective wants, desires. You would not ban someone's lifestyle just because it provides some "pleasure" to you, unless you can show how that unit you are banning, regulating actually harms society or benefits it objectively. Just because you want them gone does not = utility.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Bullshit, since the misery (ie- discrimination, violence, economic hardship, etc) inflicted upon the oppressed individuals is objective and therefore far outweighs any subjective pleasure derived by the sadistic members of the majority.

Wow- nice contradiction there asshole- have a short memory there don't we?

If someone's freedom brings someone else misery, then what good is that freedom? Mindless ideologues such as yourself invariably discard the end goal of any system of morality in favour of a single-minded focus on the means to that goal rather than the goal itself.

The end goal of a system of morality is a happy society, not a society which fulfills a lot of abstract principles but is full of miserable people. Think about that.

By your own words you stated that freedom should be suppresed if it brings someone else misery- and then you turn around and state that its wrong to suppress someone's freedom if it brings them misery. Here's a tip GENIUS- you can't have it both ways- the only way to suppress someones freedom is through methods that cause objective harm.

Added to this is the fact that the distinction between objective and subjective harm is itself an "abstract principle"- its just a "means to the goal rather then the goal itself." Since the "end goal", according to you, is a "happy soceity" one can dispense with this principle if it stands in the way of that goal- as it does with my theocracy example.

Nice strawman, trolling fucktard. Since those medications must be prescribed because they can seriously fuck people up, they would make things WORSE, not better. You keep doing this: inventing situations where something would cause lots of problems in order to pretend that an outcome-based ethics system is a bad thing, when in reality the nature of outcome-based ethics systems is to avoid such idiotic situations.

By objecting to my example on technical grounds you've inadventently proved my point- namely under utilitarianism you have no grounds to object to the secret involuntary medication of soceity, provided that it does not cause undesired side-effects, since it produces a "better" outcome- namely the reduction/elimination of clinical depression.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

By your own words you stated that freedom should be suppresed if it brings someone else misery- and then you turn around and state that its wrong to suppress someone's freedom if it brings them misery. Here's a tip GENIUS- you can't have it both ways- the only way to suppress someones freedom is through methods that cause objective harm.

Which is where we come to Part 3 of Utilitarianism. Where we calculate the amount of harm done. For example, the objective harm of libel may be greater than the objective harm of suppressing libel. Therefore, suppressing libel is good, or at least the better option.

As a counterexample, one may argue that the harm caused by accidental, occasional libel may be less than the collateral damage caused by a new law intended to limit such accidents (for example by demanding higher standards of evidence before publishing groundbreaking news, which in turn may limit freedom of speech).

For oppression of minorities, it is hard to imagine that the harm to the majority with the minorities unopressed (entirely subjective) would be greater than the harm of the minority which is oppressed (very objective).

By objecting to my example on technical grounds you've inadventently proved my point- namely under utilitarianism you have no grounds to object to the secret involuntary medication of soceity, provided that it does not cause undesired side-effects, since it produces a "better" outcome- namely the reduction/elimination of clinical depression.

Do you object to the injection of fluoride into our water supply? It is quite harmless, with clear positive good and reduction of harm. So under utilitarianism, it should be allowed. I don't think you'd object to this...

In the purely hypo situation where such a drug as you propose could be added and it will have insignificant ill effects, even in the long term, it is no more objectionable than the "involuntary addition" of fluoride into our drinking water.

Can you tell me, if there is a wonder drug that has no side effects and drastically reduces depression, any reason why we should object to it?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

By objecting to my example on technical grounds you've inadventently proved my point- namely under utilitarianism you have no grounds to object to the secret involuntary medication of soceity, provided that it does not cause undesired side-effects, since it produces a "better" outcome- namely the reduction/elimination of clinical depression.

Yes, there is an excellent rule utilitarian reason not to do it in secret. It's dangerous , and it immorally gives the government too much power over you. You are handing the government a blank check to potentially sedate or drug you into submission, which has the potential of destroying government balance and freedom as a whole. The risk is too great. You cannot trust the government with secretely medicating the population when they do not want it. It's a dangerous long term potential issue that sets a dangerous precedent.

Now, if they TOLD the populace, then it would be different and acceptible under Utilitarianism, as long as it didn't cause riots and was wanted.

Your scenario is a fantasy, contrived, lifeboat scenario. These crazy hypotheticals do not make for good ethics.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

NO matter what, the government should always tell you what they are doing to your food and water supply. If it won't go over well, it's most likely not good. If you have to hide it for fear of pepole going into a panic or rioting, tere's a sign you probably shouldn't be doing it, unless there is some dire emergency.

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit, since the misery (ie- discrimination, violence, economic hardship, etc) inflicted upon the oppressed individuals is objective and therefore far outweighs any subjective pleasure derived by the sadistic members of the majority.

Wow- nice contradiction there asshole- have a short memory there don't we?

If someone's freedom brings someone else misery, then what good is that freedom? Mindless ideologues such as yourself invariably discard the end goal of any system of morality in favour of a single-minded focus on the means to that goal rather than the goal itself.

The end goal of a system of morality is a happy society, not a society which fulfills a lot of abstract principles but is full of miserable people. Think about that.

By your own words you stated that freedom should be suppresed if it brings someone else misery- and then you turn around and state that its wrong to suppress someone's freedom if it brings them misery.

And now you are deliberately misusing the word "freedom". How does the removal of freedoms from gays somehow represent an example of "freedoms bringing misery to others", you fucking moron?

Here's a tip GENIUS- you can't have it both ways- the only way to suppress someones freedom is through methods that cause objective harm.

Here's a tip, STUPID WORM-HEADED FUCKTARD- you are simply wrong. You can suppress someone's freedom without causing objective harm. For example, traffic laws suppress your freedom. They do not cause any objective harm. Yet again, you demonstrate that you are too fucking stupid to even understand elementary terms such as "objective harm" or even "freedom", as demonstrated by your belief that the passage of laws which restrict freedom for minorities would somehow be an example of freedom.

Added to this is the fact that the distinction between objective and subjective harm is itself an "abstract principle"- its just a "means to the goal rather then the goal itself." Since the "end goal", according to you, is a "happy soceity" one can dispense with this principle if it stands in the way of that goal- as it does with my theocracy example.

For the umpteenth time, not only is your claim simply wrong (any methods of trying to determine social levels of happiness will show that people are generally happier in secular societies, unless you're so fucking stupid that you think all of the Untouchables in India are happy, or all of the gays and women in Muslim countries are happy, etc), but it also deliberately oversimplifies the goal of a healthy society.

Nice strawman, trolling fucktard. Since those medications must be prescribed because they can seriously fuck people up, they would make things WORSE, not better. You keep doing this: inventing situations where something would cause lots of problems in order to pretend that an outcome-based ethics system is a bad thing, when in reality the nature of outcome-based ethics systems is to avoid such idiotic situations.

By objecting to my example on technical grounds you've inadventently proved my point- namely under utilitarianism you have no grounds to object to the secret involuntary medication of soceity, provided that it does not cause undesired side-effects, since it produces a "better" outcome- namely the reduction/elimination of clinical depression.

So you call the distinction between causing harm and preventing harm a mere "technical" difference?

Hey you idiot, if someone invented a magical drug which did make everyone feel better all the time with no conceivable side-effects whatsoever, then YES. I would support its use, although there is no utilitarian benefit whatsoever to secrecy, and considerable utilitarian reason not to permit government secrecy in general. Only an idiot would NOT support the use of such a magic wonder-drug, fucktard.

Yet again, your whole argument is: "utilitarianism always recommends that which helps people; that's ... wrong, and I'll make up examples of things which actually HARM people in order to attack it by asking what would happen if they actually HELPED people instead". As if you don't realize that the reason for our revulsion would no longer exist in such a hypothetical scenario.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

And now you are deliberately misusing the word "freedom". How does the removal of freedoms from gays somehow represent an example of "freedoms bringing misery to others",

Gee- it could be that their "sexual freedom*", namely homosexuality, is against their "holy law"; making them angry/miserable that a group out there is flouting "god's law". Additionally, I'm sure there will be some claim that they're indirectly (or perhaps even directly) corrupting the childern- bringing in another angle of subjective anger/misery.

*This is really just an implication of the idea "my body belongs to me."

you fucking moron?

Since you think a moron is someone who spends times arguing about the indirect implications of a philosophical sytem I suggest you get off of your pedastol and get some perspective.

Here's a tip, you are simply wrong. You can suppress someone's freedom without causing objective harm. For example, traffic laws suppress your freedom. They do not cause any objective harm.

It is true that the passage of the law may not cause any objective harm in and of itself (in may in fact have quite a large benefit). However- this law, like all laws, is just a suggestion unless it is enforced with penalties, backed by the threat of physical force (from the government), on those who violate it. In other words- all laws depend upon enforcement and enforcement depends upon the infliction of objective harm on those who disobey; thus proving my original statement- the only way to suppress someones freedom is through methods that cause objective harm.

This in turn means that your original contradiction stands.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you are too fucking stupid to even understand elementary terms such as "objective harm" or even "freedom", as demonstrated by your belief that the passage of laws which restrict freedom for minorities would somehow be an example of freedom.

What the hell are you talking about? I never claimed that.

any methods of trying to determine social levels of happiness will show that people are generally happier in secular societies, unless you're so fucking stupid that you think all of the Untouchables in India are happy, or all of the gays and women in Muslim countries are happy, etc

Of course I don't think that- however the question isn't "are the Untouchables of India happy." It's "Is the misery of India's Untouchables justified if it brings a greater amount of happiness to the majority of India's population?".

According to utilitaritanism- the answer is yes.

So you call the distinction between causing harm and preventing harm a mere "technical" difference?

If the question is "should soceity be involuntarily medicated"- then yes, your objection was on technical grounds- as opposed to philosophical grounds (ie- this violates individuals rights regardless of the cost/benefit) or religious grounds (ie- this goes against the will of God regardless of the cost/benefit).

I would support its use, although there is no utilitarian benefit whatsoever to secrecy, and considerable utilitarian reason not to permit government secrecy in general.

Bullshit- government secrecy allows you to reap the benefits of the implimentation of your value judgement without having to pay any of the potential costs. In this example, you would get all the benefits of chemically induced happiness in soceity without having to deal with the dissent/"unhappiness" from such a decision being made in public.

In other words- since you would get a "better" result by keeping it secret you're justified in doing according to utilitarianism.

Hey you idiot, if someone invented a magical drug which did make everyone feel better all the time with no conceivable side-effects whatsoever, then YES. I would support its use.... Only an idiot would NOT support the use of such a magic wonder-drug, fucktard.

Which of course illustrates the main problem of utilitarianism- it allows people in positions of power to justify their actions based strictly on their own subjective standards of value. In real life not every decision is a black and white one between happiness/prosperity and misery/poverty- the vast majority of decisions are ones which involve a tradeoff between these values, and others, both immediately and in the longterm. Instead of allowing people to determine and choose a combination they prefer Utilitarianism forces individuals to live by the subjective value judgement of another person/people.

To relate this to this specific example- Your medicated soceity may be happier in a chemical sense, but whether or not this is a course of action they prefer, let alone agree with, is another question entirely; you've forced them into a course of action that you think is "better" regardless of their opinion on the matter.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Gee- it could be that their "sexual freedom*", namely homosexuality, is against their "holy law"; making them angry/miserable that a group out there is flouting "god's law". Additionally, I'm sure there will be some claim that they're indirectly (or perhaps even directly) corrupting the childern- bringing in another angle of subjective anger/misery.

Subjective harm based on delusions of arbitrary, artificial and unjust laws brought by non-existent dieties < objective harm to minorities from said oppression, or even subjective harm from the forced suppression of a natural human desire (AFAIK homosexuality is quite natural and at least partially genetic).

It is true that the passage of the law may not cause any objective harm in and of itself (in may in fact have quite a large benefit). However- this law, like all laws, is just a suggestion unless it is enforced with penalties, backed by the threat of physical force (from the government), on those who violate it. In other words- all laws depend upon enforcement and enforcement depends upon the infliction of objective harm on those who disobey; thus proving my original statement- the only way to suppress someones freedom is through methods that cause objective harm.

They only cause objective harm if you go and break the laws. Until you do, the harm will be subjective (and very minor), especially when you compare it to the benefit. The same is not true of an oppressive law against minorities, which will cause harm proportional to its level of oppression, with even greater harm done to those who challenge it.

If for some stupid reason, the consequences are such that if I don't pass the law, a substantial percentage of the gay-haters would commit suicide out of disgust, presuming there is no other choice, I would give very serious consideration to passing a temporary law with a sunset provision, and use the time to change those people's minds. While this is far from a perfect solution, are you proposing the other solution (doing something that will knowingly cause many millions to die, which can also be expressed crudely as the Ultimate Removal of All Freedoms, even if it is for a totally stupid reason) is necessarily better? Unless of course the law is for something like the genocide of homosexuals, rather than something relatively mild like not allowing marriages.

If their minds won't change (or hypothetically if I knew for certain that even if I gave them that time, those people still won't change), I'd repeal the law at its sunset provision, even if that means those people would commit suicide. At this point, the equation changes. While even those idiots lives are precious, a finite number of deaths is not worth an eternity of pain from oppression.

Of course I don't think that- however the question isn't "are the Untouchables of India happy." It's "Is the misery of India's Untouchables justified if it brings a greater amount of happiness to the majority of India's population?".

The misery of India's untouchables is quantitative (like their poverty). The happiness of the rest of India's population is qualitative. Besides, unless you wish to contend most of India are made of sadists, I really find it hard to believe there is any great happiness in India's majority about the poverty of the Untouchables.

Bullshit- government secrecy allows you to reap the benefits of the implimentation of your value judgement without having to pay any of the potential costs. In this example, you would get all the benefits of chemically induced happiness in soceity without having to deal with the dissent/"unhappiness" from such a decision being made in public.

In general, however, such blissful ignorance does not last forever. Eventually, something tends to leak out (especially since this is such a large scale project), and then you get these problems PLUS you get additional distrust of the government. If you had been honest about the drugs from the start, there will be some dissent, but at least they know their government's been straight with them.

In other words- since you would get a "better" result by keeping it secret you're justified in doing according to utilitarianism.

Presumably, MW makes his calcs like we do, that in the long run, you would get caught, and the rebound would have been worse. I suppose it could get a bit fuzzier if you had already presumed the secret could be held forever. Then there is rule utilitarianism, which would expound the overuse of Secrecy in Government to other, less advantageous circumstances, so overall the use of Secrecy is bad.

Which of course illustrates the main problem of utilitarianism- it allows people in positions of power to justify their actions based strictly on their own subjective standards of value. In real life not every decision is a black and white one between happiness/prosperity and misery/poverty- the vast majority of decisions are ones which involve a tradeoff between these values, and others, both immediately and in the longterm. Instead of allowing people to determine and choose a combination they prefer Utilitarianism forces individuals to live by the subjective value judgement of another person/people.

The analysis of such short-term/long-term benefits is in and as of itself Utilitarianism.

To relate this to this specific example- Your medicated soceity may be happier in a chemical sense, but whether or not this is a course of action they prefer, let alone agree with, is another question entirely; you've forced them into a course of action that you think is "better" regardless of their opinion on the matter.

All right. So you think that the choice is not to medicate them, and thus deprive them of the measurable (both subjectively and objectively) pleasure. Justify this decision.

If your argument is that based on a different formula, people may not be happier in a medicated society, then you are not really arguing with the base foundations of Utiliarianism, because you are still weighing benefits and costs (subjective, objective, long-term, short-term or otherwise). All you are doing is nitpicking about its exact application.

If your argument is that it would have been better to ask them first, then one can try to see if it is better by Utilitarian grounds. A counterargument might be to point out the sad fact many people cannot tell their butts from their heads (see the latest percentage of Creationists), so asking them may be the equivalent of telling them to stab themselves. Either way, you are still on the Field of Utilitarianism. Besides, it won't challenge the idea that giving them the medication is a better idea than not.

And I find it really hard to believe that most human beings would deny themselves happiness when it does no harm to anyone or themselves.
---------------
By the way, the alternative to Utilitarianism is apparently Deontology. If you think Utilitarianism could be abused to justify incorrect actions, just wait till you try Deontology (closely related to Kantian ethics). Which apparently leads to ridiculous scenarios where you are supposed to tell the truth to a murderer, based on the presumed idea telling the truth is an absolute virtue. You don't have to justify it with any calcs of benefit/cost. It is a virtue, therefore it is good. At least as I understand Deontology anyway - maybe I'm misreading Wiki.