The principle of Utility is true

Well socialpinko has gotten us off to a good start and in a good direction. Let's see where it takes us. C1 Morality and Meaning Ethical theories are basically attempts to define the word "morality". All human societies have this word "morality" but we aren't always clear on what to make of it. If moral language isn't complete gibberish then "morality" must have a clear definition. If a definition is proposed that is incoherent or illogical then we can be sure that definition is invalid. Deontology and natural law theory, as I show, fail to give logically sufficient, coherent explanation of morality. There are several others, as my opponent has pointed out. Can he demonstrate that any of of these offer logical, coherent and complete explanations of morality? This is what I have done for the PoU. It's true that people can intuit any number of competing conceptions of morality. And by definition only one, if any, can be right. I don't argue for intuitionism however. I'm simply pointed out the word "morality" has a meaning and that the only logical, coherent definition it has is the PoU. C4 Morality is objective (new) As my opponent points out, if the PoU is true then morality must be objective. So the burden is on me to prove morality exists objectively. The substrate of normative morality is the set of moral impulse that biologist study in all social animals. ("Moral impulses" here refers to such things as aversions to harming others and the innate desire to be helpful - the conscience, in other words). The substrate is also composed of moral axioms which I will discuss later. Thinking animals (mainly humans at this point in evolutionary history) inevitably render these impulses into logical systems of thought. This system of thought is what is properly referred to by the phrase "normative morality". All people develop this system of thought as they mature (unless they have an empathy disorder such a sociopathy). In any given person, the system is roughly the same. In a sense, it can be considered an organ. Consider that not all kidneys, for example, are exactly the same but, if they develop correctly, they are indeed roughly the same, having the same behaviors, attributes, etc. The fact that virtually all people have this same cognitive organ and that it is roughly the same in all people justifies viewing it as a thing it itself. Throughout the rest of this debate, I will call this system of beliefs the "normative organ". The normative organ is the source of normative morality. It is composed of beliefs about what actions ought to be done. Almost all these beliefs are internally consistent and they are all concerned with well-being. Any belief one holds which is not concerned with well-being isn't a part of the normative organ because its substrate of moral impulse and moral axioms are only concerned with well-being. This is why the PoU is true. It maps perfectly onto the normative organ because the normative organ can only be concerned with the happiness and suffering of conscious system. So what is happening when someone makes a claim which he or she calls moral but has nothing to do with well-being. It might be that the person has a mistaken understanding of the definition. Perhaps, "morality" has been mistaken for "obedience" as in divine command theory[1]. Or a person could be motivated to justify a social system such as when Aristotle said that slavery was right because it is natural for some types people to be slave[2]. Does it make sense to call divinely commanded genocide (as in the Bible[3]) or slavery "moral". Why do these claims so clearly fail to make sense. Because they are wholly inconsistent with the beliefs contained in the normative organ. The normative organ is an entirely objective entity. This may seem counteractive since it is a subset of beliefs and beliefs are typically experienced subjectively. But remember, a belief is a thought and a thought is a neural process. It's true that thoughts depend on a human's anatomy for their existence but so does any biological process. Would we ever dispute the objectivity of blood circulation, metabolism, biosynthesis or any of the other processes that depends on an organism for it's existence. Of course not. Likewise, we can't dispute the objectivity of the normative organ. In round 1 C3, I asked the reader to consider the state of someone who had been cast into utter deprivation and misery by a fellow human being. He doesn't simply believe he has been wrong and that the person who caused his ruin was immoral, he can't help but to believe it. There is no way for him to see this any other way. Moral logic rests on axioms like this. He can't help but believe the statement "It is immoral for others to treat me this way". Therefore, because of the law of noncontridiction, with regard to others, he can only say, "It is immoral to treat others this way as well". All people have things they value. Most people have families and friends whose well-being they value. Even if a person has none of these, they still value their own well-being. Because of this, every one is capable of being subjected to arguments like "Why is it wrong for X to be done to you but not wrong for you to do X to someone else?". Therefore, the moral axiom explained above is applicable to everyone. The development of the normative organ is the natural process virtually all people go through when they reflect on questions like this. So the normative system of logic that is encapsulated by the normative organ not only rest on a substrate of moral impulses but also on moral axioms. Morality, therefore, objectively exists, is a complete logical system which rests on its own axioms and is subject to the laws of logic. Moral axioms and the very nature of objective morality (as I show above) deal strictly with the well-being of conscious systems. This is precisely why the principle of utility is true. Nothing other than happiness and suffering could possibly matter in a moral system. Self-Defeating Personality Disorder (SDPD), Sadomasochism, etc. My opponent points out that "We can easily conceive of a person who believes that pain is a moral good in itself". I readily concede this but one can conceive of a person who believes literally anything. Obviously, it doesn't make it true. If there is a person out there that thinks suffering is the goal of morality then we've simply found somebody who is not familiar with the concept. My opponent adduces self-defeating personality disorder and sadomasochists as examples of people who see pain as a moral good. All the definitions I can find on sadomasochists agree that sadomasochist seek sexual pleasure from the act of receiving pain[4]. What is being sough here is pleasure. Pain is just an expedient to pleasure like food is. People with SDPD act in self defeating ways. People with this disorder don't see pain as a moral good. What seems to be happening with this disorder is that victims of it feel guilt and act on that guilt in excess. Though the guilt is perhaps irrational, the logic is consistent with the PoU. Consider that in modern, civilized cultures, people who exhibit antisocial behavior (criminals) are punished in order to deter that behavior. This is done to promote the greatest amount of pleasure for the most people. Some people deem themselves to be guilty and deserving of punishment for the same reason. Though people with SDPD are probably wrong about their personal guilt, their moral compass is consistent with the PoU. In the end, normative morality, as I have stated, is similar to an organ. And like an organ, it can be underdeveloped or malformed in some people (particularly sociopaths and the like). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://oregonstate.edu... [3] http://vox-nova.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...