"I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism." His primary mode of definition is hand-waving, so it's hard to pin him down, but it seems

"I also don't see how Harris is defending classical utilitarianism." His primary mode of definition is hand-waving, so it's hard to pin him down, but it seems like he is advocating for maximizing wellbeing/happiness/flourishing among all people. This is pretty much the textbook definition of utilitarianism. Admittedly, he contradicts himself enough that it's hard to know what he really wants, so I might be wrong. When he says, "I think people should be able to wear whatever they want" and simultaneously advocates for condemning those who don't objectively promote human well-being, you know he doesn't have an internally consistent ethic worked out. "He doesn't claim that (again, as far as I can tell) that people who don't share his point of view are imbeciles" He describes important questions from critics as "profoundly stupid". But this is the money quote: "Others will be free to define 'equality' differently. Yes, they will. And we will be free to call them 'imbeciles.'" The others are those who disagree with utilitarianism, so it's there in black and white.