How can the press be correct about what something is, when that something has since its inception been both vocally and actively different? Even going back to Singers books that sort of kicked this all off its specifically said to be different to utilitarianism. Most advocates of EA say they're not utilitarian. I'm saying I'm not utilitarian. EA organizations actions are clearly not utilitarian in general.
I don't really know how to defend EA as not Utilitarian beyond that, except saying take a look at some EA-based books or blog posts that aren't from the last month and decide for yourself!
If you're genuine about learning more to have a balanced view I really do recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qslo4-DpzPs. This to me is a good representation of what EA is and is challenged by someone in a sensible way.
You keep using and implying the term learn as if I haven't read about this quite a few times over the past decade, evaluated it, and found it wanting. Please do me a favor and at least acknowledge that many people you interact with regarding EA have thought about it and aren't babes in the wool.
EA is reskinned utilitarianism, which folks have repeated pointed out.
