The Principle of Utility

I think pro for the interesting response. Pro has only focused on refuting my objections. By default, he has failed his BoP. 1. The problem of 'consequence verses motive' Pro is avoiding the point by taking a view that is contrary to what the debate is actually about. The PoU posits objective morality in the sense that the effect on happiness in regards to the action being moral is absolute and unchanging; relative in the sense that a given action might be moral or immoral depending on the situation. In response to this contention, Pro wavers from the principles of the PoU. His views are certainly more plausible than utilitarianism, but since they don't match what the actual debate is about, they are irrelevant. It is a given that giving food to a starving man usually leads to positive outcomes, but Pro has no justification to say that makes it an objectively morally good act. The PoU is relative in certain aspects. Probabilities and collectivism are completely irrelevant. The PoU states any action that increases happiness is morally good(and vice-versa). It does not state any action that more often leads to a positive affect on happiness is good. Pro has no basis for such assertions. We can't answer the question, is giving food to a starving man morally good or bad? It is completely dependent on circumstance. According to the PoU, giving food to a starving man could be moral in some cases but immoral in others. It does not have to be one or the other every time. Therefore, it still stands that giving food to the starving man could very often be an immoral act. It is true that it would probably lead to more net-happiness, but the PoU is based solely on consequence, not probability. Furthermore we can note, this contention has not even been directly responded to. My opponent does not really address consequence verses motive, rather more along the lines of the non-responsibility and the impossible calculation objections. Even if we were to accept my opponents view, we would still be focusing solely on consequence, and motive would be entirely irrelevant. 2. The problem of non-responsibility It does not matter how society sees the act of killing a homeless man. Most likely, even if everyone on this planet was a utilitarianist, no-one would look favorably on the killer, even if they knew his actions lead to greater consequences. However, that still does not mean it wasn't a morally good act by utilitarianist principles. All we have to do is look to the definition provided in round 1 and there is no way to escape the fact that it could be morally wrong given the circumstance. Pro is incorrect in his objections to a case-by-case basis. The PoU necessitates such a basis. Furthermore, Pro's analogy does not apply. I presented the hypothetical example that killing a homeless man could lead to more happiness. My opponent argues that viewing it as a moral act would be negative to society as a counter argument. However, that is two separate actions. Killing the homeless man would me moral even if society thought it immoral. And as stated, even in a utilitarianist world, no-one would look favorably on the murderer. The basic workings of the human brain would disallow it. I also do not feel Pro has really addressed the ice-cream cone analogy. Yes, if the ice-cream had been poisoned, it would have been a morally good act. That only helps to support my case, since you were committing a moral act without the slightest intention or knowledge. If it was not poisoned, you would be committing an immoral act for the sole reason that you fancied a walk down to the rocks. The Non-responsibility contention still stands. 3. The problem of moral duty Moral obligation would still exist even if Pro thinks "preference" is a better word. If you were faced with the choice of slapping your friend in the face or refraining from doing so, you would have an obligation to not slap him. Slapping him would be an immoral act according to the PoU, thus there would be a moral obligation not to do it. Even if my opponents unfounded claims that everyone seeked happiness were true, why would we have an obligation to contribute to happiness? Or why not only an obligation to ourselves instead of society? Moral obligation exist in a moral framework such as posited by PoU. Calling it preference does not alleviate the fact. 4. The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculations Pro's revised form of the PoU is certainly something for utilitarianists to consider, but unfortunately it has no baring on this debate. I ask Pro to show how his views could possibly correlate with the definition of the PoU presented in the first round. It is completely unfounded to say actions are good based on the probability of whether they will turn out good, or by what results have occurred in past events. The PoU very clearly states actions are good if the consequences yield a greater net-happiness. That mentions nothing about probabilities at all. Saving a persons life would most likely yield a greater net-happiness, but so what? "Most likely" is not included in the utilitarianism framework. My opponent agrees that calculations are impossible but rests his objections on probabilities. Firstly, the PoU says nothing about probabilities; secondly how on earth are we to calculate probabilities if there is an infinite number of potential outcomes anyway? 5. The problem of the subjectivity of values Desire =/= fulfilment of happiness. Stoics do not base their goal on the belief that it yields happiness. That is completely false. Happiness was defined as, "a mix of pleasure, contentedness, joy and absence of pain". Stoic goals do not correlate with the definition at all. If one seeks isolation, it does not mean he is seeking it because it will make him happier. A perhaps better example would be monks who seek self-righteousness by bodily afflictions and toil. What they seek is righteousness; not happiness. Happiness can not be defined as, "what you want". And even if it were so, that would present even more problems since goals of different individuals are prone to conflict with others goals. You may believe one philosophy of life is better because you believe it attempts the correct things; not because you want happiness. Otherwise we might as well define all philosophies as utilitarianism since all goals are apparently essenced in happiness. 6. Self-ownership objection This is a new contention for this round focusing on the factor of self-ownership. Self-ownership is the principle that we own our own bodies, and have rights in regards to what we do with our bodies. If the principle of self-ownership is correct and the PoU is found to contradict that principle, then we will find the PoU to be flawed. I can demonstrate this in two ways. I. Any action, by the PoU, that decreases happiness is a morally wrong act. Therefore, if we harm our own body we are committing a morally wrong act. This would mean that what we want to do with our body is completely irrelevant to what is morally permissible to do with our body. Committing acts that decrease our own happiness would be morally wrong. However, why can't I do what I want with my body? Why am I obligated to only do things that benefit my happiness? II. Suppose in a certain circumstance, your body is on the line for whether net-happiness is satisfied? Suppose cutting off your arm would benefit two other people? Or even killing yourself? According to the PoU we would be obligated to cut off our arm or kill our self. This contradicts our self-ownership, as well as being blatantly implausible. Why must I suffer so that others will be happy? The principle of utility violates the most basic rights of human beings. Lastly the principle of self-ownershp is a self-evident fact. If beings posess any right whatsoever, they possess the right to their body. They own their bodies, thus can do what they want with their bodies as long as they are not violating others rights.