Resolved: Utilitarianism is a flawed moral ideology

Ave! I am going to be making an argument for a form of utilitarianism that has been popularized by writers such as Sam Harris and Joseph Daleiden.Moral TruthIf objective moral values and duties do not exist, then it's clear that utilitarianism cannot be a moral ideology, because morality is just subjective. I'm going to devote a section to criticize relativism before I begin with my arguments. Please note that I'm not refuting LK's argument, as that would be against the rules. He hasn't argued for relativism.The existence of moral conflict does not disprove moral truth. If I say that voodoo practices are justified by physics, and Victor Stenger tells me otherwise, there must not be any truths to be known about physics! Our beliefs about physics are merely cultural and biological. A person in Africa has a different idea of physics than I do. Physics that work America don't have to work in Brazil. This is insane, but it's relativism taken to its logical consequences.Some realtivists argue that we cannot demonstrate moral values to be true or false using fact, so they must not correspond to reality. But, if somebody argues that witchcraft is immoral and that we should burn witches, we can prove that their opinion is wrong using objective facts. We can use our modern day scientific knowledge to show that witchcraft does not exist. We can also use scientific data to show that burning people alive as punishment might not be a great idea. Moral values can be proven or disproven with reference to facts.Moral relativism also argues that moral judgements are subjective and do not correspond to reality. Therefore, we should be intolerant of other moral systems and ideas because of this. However, this presents us with a contradiction. Tolerance is treated as a universal moral value that we should all act by. A moral relativist in America thinks we should tolerate other moral systems, and a moral relativist in Brazil would believe the same. On relativism, everybody should be tolerant of other people's morality. Ergo, tolerance is assumed as objectively moral, making relativism self-contradictory.Moral relativists also shouldn't debate people. In entering a debate, a relativist has assumed several first values. These values are things like truth, respect for evidence, respect for logic, etc. However, they also claim that there are no objective moral values. How then can he enter a debate that assumes things like logic and evidence are objectively valuable?Moral truth exists, so utilitarianism can be true.What is morality?I am not going to redefine the word "morality" differently from the definition given in the first round. I'm just going to expand on the definition to make a larger point. We"ve established that morality is a system of dictating right and wrong. But, what do cultures and civilizations typically consider to be right and wrong?The well-being of conscious creatures is the basis of all moral judgements. Kill your daughter? That's wrong. Sacrifice a child to the gods? That's moral. Step on a twig and snap it in half? It's just a twig. We know of no culture or civilization that punishes its members for crimes against unconscious things. Ergo, the role that well-being has in morality is undeniable.Of course, one can think of moral judgements that have nothing to do with well-being at first glance. Why are people against cutting down the world's oldest tree? It's not conscious, yet people are against cutting it down. The answer to this is that the moral value is ultimately reducible to well-being. As humans, we have a bias towards keeping old things and traditions, so we don't want to see something like the world's oldest tree get cut down. With deeper analysis, we can conclude that "Don't cut down the world's oldest tree" actually relates to human well-being.In conclusion, the most meaningful definition of right and wrong is based on the well-being of conscious creatures.Maximizing Well-BeingIf all morality is reducible to the well-being of conscious creatures, then it logically follows that maximizing well-being is moral. If you have problem Y, and solution X and X1 attempt to solve that problem, then the one that maximizes well-being is the most moral.A Moral LandscapeSince morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures, we can create a type of moral landscape about the morality of our actions. The peaks of this landscape represent the maximization of well-being, and the valleys represent the worst possible misery for everyone. An action's morality can be decided based on where we would place it on the moral landscape. If the action improves economic well-being, then it would bring us closer to a peak, and it would be moral. If somebody decides to kill forty people with a machine gun, then that would bring us closer to a valley, and it would be immoral.Measuring Well-BeingConsider the issue of women being forced to wear hijab. Does it make human beings more compassionate to one another? Does it make life safer for the woman (prevented rape, etc)? Does it improve the woman and her mental health? These questions all fall under the domain of scientific research. Scientific research can be conducted to investigate the affect that compulsory hijab has on compassion or the mental health of women who are forced to wear hijab. Science could also determine if wearing hijab makes one any else likely to get raped, and it can also tell us why people rape other people in the first place. That would also work to help us decide the affect of hijab on well-being.Science can also analyze the physical states of the brain, and determine if an action has harmed or improved the well-being of the subject. Through the scientific method, we have an objective and empirical way of measuring well-being.Different ways of reaching peaksThe fact that we have many ways of promoting well-being does not undermine my moral system. By analogy, consider food. There are many healthy foods that one can eat. On any day, you could eat brocolli, carrots, or celery, and they would all be healthy foods. However, there is a clear difference between healthy food and poison, and the fact that there are many healthy foods to eat does not tempt us to say that there is no poison. To put this analogy in real terms, we have many ways of pursuing well-being, but this does not mean there are not ways to harm well-being.Concluding Points- Moral truth exists, so utilitarianism can be moral.- Morality reduces to the well-being of conscious creatures.- Maximizing well-being is moral.- Well-being can be quantified.There are several problems that Pro has put forward in the last round that I didn't address here because of the rules. For instance, how do we quantify well-being? Aren't ideas of well-being subjective? I will answer these arguments in the next round.Vale!