Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

"You just completely ignored the definitions of "moral system" I posted." I did not ignore the definition of moral system my opponent posted. I did not attack it because there was merely nothing to say about it. A moral system is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. That's great, that's wonderful. Now let"s move on. "And my opponent still continues not to explain how the Holocaust was "minimizing suffering"." It minimized suffering because Hitler and the Nazis believed that they would be better off if they did not have to deal with "vermin" anymore. "I also would argue that it is inaccurate to say that the reason these actions are immoral is not because of utilitarianism, but because of the inaccurate assumption that there are in fact "higher" and "lesser" people." Hitler, although he was not a moral person, he was an amazing orator which is how he convinced many people that Jews were less than them. He justified himself by using utilitarianism. He convinced most of Germany that he would be increasing happiness and decreasing suffering by starting genocide against the Jews. Without utilitarianism, it would be much, much harder to persuade people to kill an entire race. "Yes, it can. I explained the definition of "moral system" that I would be using in R1, yet you continue to ignore it. To reiterate: "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct; religious morality"." If the definition was "a system of ideas of right OR wrong conduct", then utilitarianism would be able to be a moral system without being moral. It would mean that a moral system could be a system of ideas of right conduct or a system of ideas of wrong conduct. But the definition is "a system of ideas of right AND wrong conduct". This means that a moral system is a system of ideas showing the difference between the right things we should do and the wrong things we should avoid. An immoral concept cannot be a system of ideas showing the difference between the right things we should do and the wrong things we should avoid if there is nothing right about it. "Here is the thing. If you change the location, but keep the same basic logic, you are going to come to a different conclusion. Anyways, a system does not have to make a statement on absolutely everything to be self-consistent, unless you want to argue that climate change theory is inconsistent because it doesn't explain why gravity exists." I did not say that a system has to make a statement on absolutely everything; I just meant that morality is not constant since situations will change and there will not always be a choice that is more moral than the other or a choice that may have been moral before becomes immoral because of a change in situation. "This is not true. To apply this thinking to another situation: Say two people like cars, but one person likes Toyotas better than any other cars, and another person likes Hondas better than any other car. The two claims are inconsistent with each other, but the root idea of "liking cars" is still SELF-consistent." Utilitarianism is a completely separate idea than liking cars. Although two different claims of liking cars do not make the idea inconsistent, it does for utilitarianism because there is no root idea of utilitarianism. There is no such thing as "just utilitarianism". We are not even debating plain utilitarianism right now; based off the definition my opponent has provided for utilitarianism, we are debating about negative utilitarianism. If two different ideas of utilitarianism disagree with each other, it makes it inconsistent because there is no root idea. "These things can only be seen as utilitarian if one takes the view that there are in fact "superior" or "inferior" races (as the perpetrators did, but I do not, and I am sure my opponent does not either.)" Although, I do not believe in superior or inferior races and my opponent has made clear that he does not either, there are many people who believe so and like I stated before, a great orator, such as Hitler, can convince masses of people that there are higher and lesser people. There are many utilitarianistic extremists and they could start another genocide using utilitarianism as their foundation. So since there are still many racists in the world today " some of who may be utilitarianistic extremists " utilitarianism is not reliable or steady.