Sure they can choose to not agree with utilitarianism (and in fact, there's a lot of reason to believe that utilitarianism is the wrong theory for modeling humans), but there are consequences associated with subscribing to a moral system. Consequences which can then be reduced down to a (mathematical!) decision theory problem. If your moral system is reducible down to a decision theory and it turns out that it's not consistent, then a savvy and malicious person can literally force you into doing what you don't want by exploiting the inconsistency.
All social structures are going to be entirely arbitrary by definition. Should we treat the criminal justice system as retributive, incentivizing, both, or neither? Is society about promoting individual rights, or maximizing social utility? Speaking of utility, should we focus on gross utility, or only the utility of a select group?
And the list goes on. I'd be curious to hear how any of these distinctions, much less "all" of them, reduce down to mathematics.
So sure, I guess it's nice that continental philosophy has its views on morality? But I'm certainly not going to bet against the side that can freely swindle away money/influence/power away.
You really don't know much about continental philosophy, do you? Here's a place to start. One of the most prominent continental philosophers, Nietzsche, is often described as a "hypermodern." He loves science, considers himself a scientist, and treats the individual aphorisms that make up his writings as "experiments," but nevertheless appreciates that without God, without "true worlds" to lean on, mankind's efforts to understand the world- scientifically or otherwise- are ultimately arbitrary, being not expressions of "truth" (a meaningless concept) but rather of power. Science is useful, but it's not true; because nothing is "true" objectively.
In essence, he's a consistent version of you. You should read him!
I like how you understand the psychology of a reductionist when the line you're quoting has nothing relating to logical positivism in it and it doesn't pattern match to my extremely rough wikipedia derived definition in my head.
How do you go from "The best way to understand physics is math and anything else is just fooling yourself" to "Wow why are you going rah rah logical positivism"
Because you're appealing to some objective, intelligible (there's that word again!) standard of "truth" which the limited human mind somehow has access to. You talk, for example, about how "the human mind can't understand physics," which implies a natural order independent of the human mind.
Every post of yours is littered with remnants of logical positivism. I'm just letting you know.
--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif