An amoralist is someone whom doesn’t believe there is a “right or wrong.”
An utilitarian believes there can be things that appear unethical, but are indeed ethical because they have ethical outcomes in the long term.
I think a lot of publications profess with the misuse of amoralism. For example, I say Machiavelli was utilitarian. He encouraged politicians to commit unethical things. But that doesn’t make him amoralist as many publications claim. What do you think?
That’s an interesting way to put it. But he certainly wasn’t looking out for the “greatest benefit to the greatest number.” So I’m a little confused about what this is supposed to mean: are saying that he ignored what the “public” thought was good or bad, and only focused on what the tyrant, as the “wise” leader, thought would bring the greatest happiness in the long run?