Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

. . . . . . . . AS to Missed roundStar Trek is a fictitious TV show (and other media formats) that shows a variety of situation and stories for public consumption. In the context of this debate, it is wide enough subject that enough people can reference it to make sense of opposition to Utilitarian as the best system, and why Secular Humanism is better. Also Star Trek is cool. Star Trek may parallel some of society views, however it also challenges and raises ideas, the first interracial Kiss, it show cased Secular humanism and how it works vs a variety of other system (including Utilitarian’s), cell phones and automatic doors. It spawn a technological revolution and inter-racial harmony that all people should be treated equal by law and could work together, Secular humanism principles. Hence why Spock Brain, & the phage show how Utilitarianism is false, in its pronouncement and application. As for your response. Thank you for the argument and I am thoroughly enjoying it. However we seem at a literal impasse with a few things you seem to avoid or ignore. I accepted Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical TheoryIn your opening remarks you then stated (before marking our points)Utilitarianism is the doctrine of providing the greatest amount of utility to the greatest number of people. Utility, here, is on a quality-of-life basis: the longer you live, the fewer health problems you face, the more education you receive, the money you earn, etc. , are all measurements of utility. I believe, Spock would say “fascinating”. You provide a well-established theory that John Stuart Mill’s lays out in the Self-Descriptive book called Utilitarianism. However you present an Argument by Definition, in which you redefine the term Utility, to such a vague and open ended definition to suit your needs that it no longer what it originally meant and can be shifted to many anything. I reject your custom definition. It is acknowledge as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives, Or as Spock says “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or one)” In Addition, your entire argument is a deontological argument by “utility’ . A deontological explanation lacks a why. You may say that Utility is a great to strive for, and it may serve an end, but you fail to justify why is that over say, equality or love, or education or even truth. Several things that UTILITY is not. Secular Humanism, starts with multiple lines of reason to reach an answer, and truth is an ideal to be followed. We use a number of lines of inquiry, not just one like Utility. Like science more lines of research and testable proof from various points is better then just one. My opponent's arguments, summed up: Utilitarianism is the best system 1a – Human are uncertain of correct system 1b – unable to judge what system is best, under current system 1c – more number of Int Beings is best finding result, because less people likely to find better ethical system None of this is proof that Utilitarianism is the best system. 2d.1 – Under Unitarianism life is the ultimate value (sic). 2d.2 – No other ethical system values both of these values as high as util. Even if point 1 was true, which it is not, point 2 is false. Utilitarianism does not value life, or the `value of life`, it values Utility, again off point. It’s like arguing how great star trek is, by referencing luke skywalker on the bridge of Galactic, firing on Klingons. Utility and Life are not the determining factors in my life, nor should they be as meaning is subjective, I may value life and beauty, or truth and porn. If my value diff, you still haven`t present an argument of why Utility is better then my values. Except by `fascinatingly` changing the definition. 3 Utilitarianism Handles conflict between values 3a – It in nearly impossible to make a decision that will not have an internal value conflict 3b –deontologicalAgain, if you redefine the term, you make the meaning and your argument useless. Utilitarianism does not handle values, it handles utility. It ignores notions of justice or ethics by focusing entirely on utility and deontology. Also deontological arguments are a red hearing, you can say Utility is the best ideal, and it’s a rule to be followed, but you haven’t answered why? To say, there is no way to judge anything, because all judgments maybe false. May I point out this is also a judgment that you came to by some standard. You also say Utilitarianism is best, which is also a Judgement, which means it claims and ideas can also be tested. So you can test and judge ideas, systems, ethics and ultimately Utilitarianism vs Secular Humanism. Again deontological statements are based on some standard, which can be judged. Slavery is permissible as is forced organ donation, as a secular humanist, this would not be permissible. This mean that your ULT is not the best ethical system unless you change our wording, in which case you’re not utilitarian or you’re not being intellectually honest. You have to prove it, spooks brain counts against you. You can in the name of UTILITY commit genocide, or forced sterilization or even let an individual go to jail innocent if it was for the sake of utility, al lof which are STAR TREK episodes, not of which would be permissible as a human secularist point of view. Your assumption that more people thinking on a problem make it more likely to answer it. If an idea is false, an infinit number of people working on an unprovable or wrong conclusion will never get there work done. Also an argument from popularity is not a valid argument, and arguing for a future argument of popularity does not mean you’re going to be any more right later. 10,000 people thinking that DS9 is a good show will never make it so. You fail to answer any of my question based on a Utilitarian’s approach if anything, you switched to different lines of thought and philosophy, a very humanist way to accomplish your goal. Secular Humanism allows you to question things, and formulate understanding based on multiple lines of reasoning, and while we hold truth as an ideal. The fact this debate is a secular humanist approach to discover what its true matters, again a secular humanist view, which is why I took on this debate. While you may have a hard time contrasting, it might be because you keep changing your definition and not the `vagueness of mine`` Just like you say you don’t understand BOP, but you used it several other debates. You have asked `` I've asked you to provide a better system, one that would do better in this problem, to solve any problems with the limitation of available choices. We'll see how it fares. `` Secular humanism – Slavery is a no starter, stealing organs is a no starter, following a rule blindly is a no starter for secular humanism. Any system that would permit it, and allow it by its own definition is less then a system that is against it. A - The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. B - The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many or one. Pro is arguing that A is true, it’s always true, regardless of the motive or justice, or minimum standards it crosses, as long as utility is served. I say, sometimes A, like in Star Trek II, sometimes B like in Star Trek III, as a secular humanist it depends, and the debate over finding out is part of it, which is a principle of secular humanism.