Do people live their lives by Utilitarianism

This does not entail that people act in a consequentialist or utilitarian fashion. Just because you "look to the cosnsequences of your actions" does not make you a utilitarian. Kant looks to the CONSEQUENCES of universal violation of a maxim in order to generate a contradiction in conception. But that doesn't make Kant a consequentialist.

Consequentialism is NOT the view that "consequences matter" or something like that. It is the thesis that the right action is that which maximises the good. This is not an uncontroversial view.

As to whether people live by util or consequentialism. Well ... some people do. Other people don't (I don't, for example). What are the proportions each side? No idea.

I think you're mistaken about the point I was trying to make. I didn't claim that looking the consequences of your actions qualifies you as a utilitarian, only that in considering the utility of a decision, consequentialist thinking is employed. If you're going to define consequentalism as considering that 'the right action is that which maximises the good' then you should know that that's the base principle of act utilitarianism - the greatest happiness for the greatest number. You're saying that Kant looks to the consequences but doesn't partake in consequential thinking? Okay, we're done here.

Personally I wouldn't say so. There are many theoretical scenarios in which most people would agree that the utilitarian method of determining what is moral doesn't provide a "correct" result.

For example, suppose you have an extremely rich man (Rob) and another man of average, or slightly below average wealth (Peter). Utilitarianism would suggest that, assuming nobody finds out about it, it is moral for Peter to steal £1000 from Rob, because this increases overall happiness. From Rob's perspective, £1000 is pocket change which he won't notice has gone missing, and doesn't mean much to him anyway. He won't lose much happiness as a result. But to Peter, £1000 is worth a lot more than it is to Rob. It could buy him a new car, or a nice holiday, or something he's only ever dreamed of, and therefore increase his happiness significantly.

One of utilitarianism's main drawbacks (compared to "common sense", I suppose,) is that it ignores the fact that people have their own individual rights that must be upheld, regardless of whether or not it increases overall happiness to do so.

There are branches of Utilitarianism which could create a different outcome. Take Mill for example, he believes in your actions creating a precedent for future actions and so to steal (despite the positive happiness gain) is considered wrong potentially as stealing will often then lead to negative hedons. Yet, the concept you bring forward could then be analysed as to why some circumstances bring greater happiness and attempt to legislate something which leaves a more continuously moral footprint (i.e. taxes).

Following that precedent argument, if the poorer person steal from the richer one, that's one thing, but then an even poorer person will therefore be allowed to steal from the person who stole initially,and therefore it all 'trickles down' and no-one is left happy.

There are branches of Utilitarianism which could create a different outcome. Take Mill for example, he believes in your actions creating a precedent for future actions and so to steal (despite the positive happiness gain) is considered wrong potentially as stealing will often then lead to negative hedons. Yet, the concept you bring forward could then be analysed as to why some circumstances bring greater happiness and attempt to legislate something which leaves a more continuously moral footprint (i.e. taxes).

Following that precedent argument, if the poorer person steal from the richer one, that's one thing, but then an even poorer person will therefore be allowed to steal from the person who stole initially,and therefore it all 'trickles down' and no-one is left happy.

Hey guys, i havent studied philosophy but im really interested in it, is Utilitarianism a decision making tool, in which happiness is the primary factor?

Personally I wouldn't say so. There are many theoretical scenarios in which most people would agree that the utilitarian method of determining what is moral doesn't provide a "correct" result.

For example, suppose you have an extremely rich man (Rob) and another man of average, or slightly below average wealth (Peter). Utilitarianism would suggest that, assuming nobody finds out about it, it is moral for Peter to steal £1000 from Rob, because this increases overall happiness. From Rob's perspective, £1000 is pocket change which he won't notice has gone missing, and doesn't mean much to him anyway. He won't lose much happiness as a result. But to Peter, £1000 is worth a lot more than it is to Rob. It could buy him a new car, or a nice holiday, or something he's only ever dreamed of, and therefore increase his happiness significantly.

One of utilitarianism's main drawbacks (compared to "common sense", I suppose,) is that it ignores the fact that people have their own individual rights that must be upheld, regardless of whether or not it increases overall happiness to do so.

I would think that people subscribe especially to hedonism - what with all of the alcohol and screen entertainment.

Utilitarianism is such a flawed ethical theory
I think ethical theories need to be more absolute, otherwise its kind of 'anything goes', Utilitarianism could be used to justify getting rid of all the immigrants in the UK, as long as more people were made happy by it, which is clearly wrong