Utilitarianism is flawed

Cons stated position is that utilitarianism is the best system for the betterment for society. Now this obviously begs a few questions. Firstly con has to substantiate that his position, if affirmed, concludes that utilitarianism is valid. In this case I would like to refer back to the definition. Utilitarianism states that actions are good/bad based on the affect they have on net-happiness. I'm afraid this doesn't correlate with what con is asserting. Even if con were to show that utilitarianism is superior to other philosophies, he still would not have demonstrated the moral assertion that actions are good/bad based on the affect they have. Moreover, it could be the case that all moral theories are false, so it serves nothing to say utilitarianism is the best one. That beings said, I would still like to assert that utilitarianism is far from the best system for attaining the betterment of society so even if my opponents statements did correlate with his BoP, I don't believe I would have any problem in accomplishing my burden. C.1 The problem of 'consequence verses motive' Utilitarianism is a philosophy that subscribes to consequentialism. The theory that consequence decides the moral worth of an action and not motive or deontology. Kant outlined this objection. He writes "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualifications, except a good will." Consequence theory is irrational. It has little plausible to say about moral worth. The man who tortures babies for fun could be committing a morally good act while the man who gives food to the starving man out of compassion an immoral one. It would all be dependent on what random and unknowable consequences might occur from that one action. The same goes for things which would largely be considered ammoral, like riding your bike or pulling out an umbrella. Simple facts like these make the theory immediately repellant but not just from emotional reasons. Consequentialism alleviates any rationality in moral choice. What if you are 100% justified in not knowing that the act you committed by moral motives, lead to negative consequences? It could not be deemed immoral, for as already stated, it was justified! It is completely irrational to say acts which were justified are immoral. Justification ties right into morality. For example, if all self-aware factors of my life point towards x being right while y is actually what is right, am I not justified in doing x? In fact, would it not be assumed that I would do x? If I did not do x, then I would be doing something contrary to what everything around me was telling was right, thus I would in fact be acting contrary to what seemed morally obvious. It would be irrational to not do x even if y were right, thus I would be fully justified to do x. It would also be more moral to do x than y, since doing x would be acting according to my moral conscience and knowledge, while y would be acting according to what none of my moral cognizance posited. C.2 The problem of non-responsibility Suppose you're at the beach with your friend. Your friend buys an ice-cream cone, and you suggest they walk down to the rocks. On your way there, your friend stumbles over a small hole that he didn't see and drops his ice-cream. He proceeds to blame you, his reasons being that if you hadn't suggested they go to the rocks, he would have never stepped in the hole and thus would have never dropped his ice-cream cone. It is inarguable that your actions lead to him dropping the ice-cream, but are his complaints rightly directed at you? Are you really to blame? I'm guessing that anyone put into the situation would be indignant that your friend would actually be blaming you for something that happened entirely unforeseeable and out of your control. However, taken utilitarianism, you would be committing an immoral act by suggesting they go to the rocks. Taking this principle, responsibility of actions are entirely out of the equation, only the latter consequences. But am I not not only morally accountable for an action if I am responsible? As Kant argues, a person who keeps promises by accident is not acting morally. In the same way, a person who accidentally causes happiness should not be considered a moral person. He is only acting morally if he understands that he should keep his promise. Moral acts, if they exist, should be based upon whether the individual understands the nature of the act. By utilitarianism, even killing a homeless man for his blanket, could turn out to be a morally good act, and stopping the murder a morally bad one. C.4 The problem of the subjectivity of values Perhaps the most appealing aspect of utilitarianism is that happiness is so valued by so many people. Now no-one would reprimand you for placing your personal view on happiness as ultimately superior by an entirely subjective stand point, but the moment you start saying that it is objectively superior, then you are starting to tread some rather unfounded grounds. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who would prefer not to have happiness. For example, many people such as monks and hermits, might want to attain righteousness by toil and isolation. Who am I to say they are objectively wrong in doing so? According to utilitarianism, I would be sinning if I did not give these people pleasure but if they don't want pleasure why would it be a sin? There are hundreds of different labeled ethical theories and even more variations. Most of those theories do not see happiness as the ultimate goal. Goals are not in the least bit objective but rather subjective, therefore utilitarianism is ultimately flawed. C.3 The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculations Utilitarianism posits that any actions is good or bad depending on its effect on happiness. This would entail that actions are sometimes good, then latter in time, bad. One act of kindness might eventually, perhaps even one hundred years latter, lead to more net-negative effects, causing the action to then be a morally bad action. This presents a number of problems. Firstly, it outlines the extreme impracticability of utilitarianism. It becomes essentially impossible to even know you are acting morally or not, or to make any reasonable calculation upon whether your action is moral or not. This leads to theoretical problems. If we can't assess all the effects of an action and also can not, within any reasonable possibility predict, what will happen, we are no longer morally free. We could never knowingly commit a purposeful action and know whether it was moral or not because there could be an infinite amount of subsequent effects which are impossible to calculate or foresee. Furthermore, I would strongly contend that knowledge is a prerequisite of morality. For, moral knowledge and awareness is what gives us moral free-will. It is why in the event of a court case, when a mentally ill person is on trial, we deal much differently than in the case of a mentally well person. We realize that factors irrelevant to his will influenced his actions and thus he is not, or not entirely, to blame. If a mentally challenged person were to slap you in your face solely due to his mental disabilities, we would not blame him but the disability. We can apply knowledge limitations the same way. If I have no way of knowing what the right choice is, I am not morally responsible for which choice I make. C.5. Self-ownership objection 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 utilitarianism 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? Utilitarianism clearly violates the most basic rights of human beings.