The Principle of Utility

Throughout this debate, I will not take an absolutist stance on morality. I will take on the position that morality is a spectrum whose absolute extremes are strictly hypothetical. Therefore, no act can, in reality, be absolutely moral or immoral. However, the location of these acts on this spectrum is determined by the utilitarian aspect of the act, and the approximate net happiness that results. Re: The problem of 'consequence verses motive' Feeding a starving man is neither absolutely moral or absolutely immoral, since the moral ramifications of the act can vary. Why is it, then, considered a good act? Are people right in thinking that it is more moral than immoral to feed a starving man? Because if we view a huge number of acts of feeding a starving man, collectively, we see that they have a positive value of net-happiness. Sometimes a specific act of feeding a starving man can lead to a negative net-happiness, but more often, it leads to an overall positive value. Any action an infinite number of known and unknown potential consequences, but when the action, holistically, leads to a positive net-happiness, then it can be said that the action should be morally encouraged, since probability states that the action has a greater chance of being moral than immoral. Every action has an infinite number of potential consequences. Saving a dying child can cause a genocide in the same way that the murder of a child can. However, murdering a child more often than not provokes anger and sadness (negative net-happiness) and, as a whole, leads to this net loss of happiness more directly. At the same time, saving a dying child more often than not provokes thankfulness and happiness (positive net-happiness) and, as a whole, leads to this net gain of happiness more directly. The sole goal of all of humanity is to find greater happiness, so an act that more often than not leads directly to a net gain in happiness is morally superior one that does not. Let us remember that if morality is a universal measure of goodness (relative to humanity), then how directly an action leads to happiness and how indirectly it leads to unhappiness is what determines the morality of an action (considering the probability of an action leading to such a result.) I would counter the Kantian "motive" idea, but the opponent attacks foundational aspects of it (e.g., moral duty) himself later in his arguments. Re: The problem of non-responsibility The action of asking your friend to walk down the rocks is more probable to have been immoral than not, since it directly led to unhappiness and most likely did not avoid greater unhappiness. It is more probable than not that this act led to a negative net-happiness as opposed to if the ice cream had still been in the friend's possession. What if the ice cream was poisoned, for example? Then the action would have most likely been moral... But the probability of keeping the ice cream leading to a consequence of greater unhappiness (based on the given specificity of the opponent's example) is slimmer than the probability of keeping the ice cream and deriving a greater net-happiness. Whether or not one should be criticized for encouraging a friend to walk on the rocks (unintentionally leading one to drop the ice cream) is a different matter from whether or not it is moral. Indeed, killing a homeless man can avoid a result of even lower net-hapiness... But if we view the killings of homeless men, holistically, we see that the net-happiness to be lowered more directly through it, and it does not tend to lead directly to greater net-happiness. This is a matter of holistic analysis and probability; the morality of actions in their entirities should not be determined on a case-by-case basis. Re: The problem of moral duty I would not call it "obligation"; it is a "natural preference." Humans all share a natural preference to be happy rather than unhappy, so actions that tend to infringe on our own preference or on the preferences of others are against the interests of humanity, holistically and at an individual level. Happiness is the only absolute common good that humanity knows. However, since happiness is derived differently in different people, it must be viewed statistically. If eating cake, among X number of cases, leads to an average increase in net-happines, then it would be in one's interest to perform said action. Re: The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculations Indeed, there are an infinite number of potential consequences. However, we must consider how directly an action leads to a net-happiness gain and its chances of achieving a net-happiness loss. In the long run, even over one hundred years, killing ten people has a greater probability of leading to net-happiness loss than the saving of ten starving babies. Is that definitely the case? No. But we can assume that certain actions lead to a greater chance of lower net-happiness than other actions. Indeed, exact calculations are not possible, considering the infinite number of potential consequences and the infinite potential span over which they can take place. However, if we restrain the consequences of two actions within a substantial duration of time, then we can see that one action has a greater probability of achieving net happiness than another. Re: The problem of the subjectivity of values If you choose to be stoic and place your value on being indifferent to the external influences of the world rather than acting another way, then you believe that you would gain more happiness through being stoic than you do through acting differently. Happiness is the “natural preference” of being. If one chooses to isolate oneself, then one seeks the net-happiness of isolation. And if one convinces oneself that such an act is against one’s interest, then one gains a greater net-happiness from working against one’s own interest, which is, indeed, counter-intuitive and self-deceptive. Whatever decision one makes out of those provided is chosen to derive maximum net-happiness. And indeed, happiness is subjective. This further upholds my stance that morality is not absolute. What matters, however, is the consequence. In our society, saving an innocent life has a greater potential to directly lead to a surplus of net-happiness. In another (hypothetical) human society, ending an innocent life has a greater potential to directly lead to a surplus of net-happiness. For this reason, morality is not guided by a set of rules, since it would be arbitrary. Morality is instead guided by happiness, which is the ultimate goal of humanity. --- I would reserve space for original arguments, but I believe that I expressed my points clearly enough in my refutations. Thank you.