No because utilitarian ethics would include more than just sexual pleasure or displeasure in its calculus. You would have to consider how allowing gang rape like that would effect the friends and family, the way the rape would cause enduring suffering for the person after the fact, the effects of rape gangs having free license to gang rape on the society and community, the terror people would be living in everyday etc etc
Then after you consider all of that then utilitarianism would still require that the gratification of the gang rapers be greater than the suffering of the people they rape. I can’t see how that wouod be the case. Their gratification would last moments, days at best, while the suffering of the rape victim would not only be worlds apart trauma wise (can you even compare the trauma of not getting off to that of being gang raped?) but it would also have all kinds of potential negative consequences for years or decades and most likely for the rest of their lives.

So I think the answer is no, utilitarianism doesn't justify rape as you describe. It would say the opposite, to not do it because the negative far outweighs the positive.

Given the goal (i.e. highest good) is "the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people", by definition this is inconsistent with "pleasure for some derived from pain of others"; therefore, "rape" is not justified (i.e. moral) in utilitarian ethics.

Would 9/10 rapees also enjoy being on the receiving end of the gang-rapers' beneficence? If you can make a good case that they might, or ought, or do, then you have something in the proposition. What would 'rules' utilitarianism have to say about this?

I'm not talking about a liscensce to rape i'm talking about a one time thing, if you don't want to use rape as an example how about Robin hood? Steal from the rich and give to the poor, or if i was an organ theif and i stole your organs to save 4 people would that be justified

But utilitarian ethics is why we have a military, so that few suffer miserably for the greater good of the whole country

Well I have no problem using rape as the example, hence I answered you in that context. Perhaps its you who regret using rape as the example since it didnt get you the answer you are looking for.
It doesnt change my answer whether you use rape or not. There is still a calculus being made whatever moral equation you posit.

This seems like bait to me.

:mask:

I'm not talking about a liscensce to rape i'm talking about a one time thing — Gitonga

If you mean that maybe one person should be raped for the pleasure of gang-rapists without considering what allowing such a thing in general would do to the greater number of people then maybe I guess. But how is that even salient? Ethics is usually concerned with norms, not one-off hypotheticals (unless the hypotheticals help us understand ethical questions better, and I don't see how your hypothetical does that).

I dont know to what you are referring. What seems like bait?

The OP. I think he is just fishing for certain answers or is trying to be inflammatory.

Given the goal (i.e. highest good) is "the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people", by definition this is inconsistent with "pleasure for some derived from pain of others"; therefore, "rape" is not justified (i.e. moral) in utilitarian ethics. — 180 Proof

I disagree; according to the greatest happiness principle more people in this example (the rapists) are potentially deriving more happiness than if they hadn't raped the person. The principle does not say that one cannot derive happiness from the suffering of others - it just follows that the rapists would need to, in total, derive more happiness than the person being raped suffers in order to justify it.

Of course, none of this says anything about whether or not gang-rape should be allowed.

Ah. Yes, I would agree. Classic baiting question really: asking a question looking for a specific answer so that the questioner can then play “gotchya”. Frustration ensues when their narrow parameters come up short in restricting responses to the one they are looking for.
OR
A person learning about utilitarianism would naturally notice the obvious weakness of ends justifying the means or act, and these sorts of questions stem from exploring that weakness.

Hard to tell which at this juncture.

If the NET suffering is increased by rape (re: victim/s), then the utilitarian goal is not met; ergo, rape has no (global) utility.

Yes, but you have to weigh the pleasure gained from an act and the suffering incurred against each other to justify it. If the act provides more pleasure for the rapists (it could, maybe), and there are also more rapists (there are nine of them) then the act could have utility. Yes, it creates suffering, but it also creates happiness/pleasure. I acknowledge that if there is a net increase in suffering it isn't justified, however, and that it realistically wouldn't be because of the reasons Dingo gave.

But it could have some utility in the crappy, narrow hypothetical posed.

Read Epicurus, Bentham, Mill, Popper ... that's not how utilitarians has been conceived and nevertheless makes no sense. The goal justifies only those means which are consistent with the goal.

I have read some of that stuff. How is weighing the happiness derived from an act against the suffering caused by it inconsistent with the goals of utilitarianism? I'll make it really simple. One is greater than nine, and the amount of pleasure derived from the act of raping someone could be greater than the suffering the rape victim incurs. If the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number is the goal (nine is greater than one) then the act of raping someone could be justified because the net amount of pleasure derived from the act could be greater than zero.

Excuse my error; I meant the net amount of pleasure, not suffering/pleasure.

The goal justifies only those means which are consistent with the goal. — 180 Proof

Unless I'm mistaken, act utilitarianism doesn't rule out much of any means at all. Whatever action produces the best outcome is right.

This counterargument to utilitarianism although old still packs a punch.

How do utilitarians respond?

1. The usual utilitarian comeback: The pleasures of carnal knowledge isn't what utilitarianism is about. I believe J. S. Mill made a distinction between lower pleasures (sex, food, other bodily desires) and higher pleasures (cultivating one's mind, developing one's talents, etc.). This basically means there's an extra condition over and above pleasure simpliciter in utilitarianism.

2. Radically novel response by utilitarians: Bodily pleasure is an illusion i.e. having sex isn't pleasure at all, nor is chowing down on haute cuisine so and so forth.

1 is the standard, official, reply to this particular brand of criticism leveled against utilitarianism. No point discussing it.

What about 2? It's, to my reckoning, a hitherto unknown retort. Is 2 a defensible position? I'm fully aware of how bizarre this point of view is but...

As a rule, the more bizarre a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be. — Sherlock Holmes

A better "counterpunch" is negative utilitarianism / consequentialism such as I talk about here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/355166

Does utilitarian ethics justify gang rape because 9/10 people enjoy it? Therefore it is achieving the greater good "sexual pleasure" for the greatest number of people at the cost of only one person's sexual displeasure. — Gitonga

9 members of the community becoming rapists does not the greater good make.