Resolved: Utilitarianism is a flawed moral ideology

Ave! I sincerely thank Lordknuckle for his interesting and engaging criticism of utilitarianism. Truly, I've enjoyed pondering the arguments.You might notice that I haven't addressed every single one of LK's arguents in its own section. This is because many of the things I say in regards to one argument have implications on others. Rather than waste room (and your time), I put them under one section.Moral TruthI think premise one is a misrepresentation of what I have said. I'm not suggesting this was on purpose, as it's possible that I didn't make myself clear. My argument is that moral relativism denies the existence of any objective moral truth. I don't believe that moral relativism denies all moral truth. That would be moral nihilism, and it would be sophomoric to confuse the two.I think it's important to put my argument in context. When I talked about how tolerance is assumed to be a universal moral value, it was an attack on a specific form of relativism called normative relativism. This view argues that since nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the actions of other people even if we disagree with them. LK took this argument and then showed how it didn't apply to a different form of relativism called meta-ethical relativism. It wasn't never meant to, and I think the context should be noted by the reader.LK says that we have subjective moral truths, and this is supposed to meaningful. However, there is no reason to think that subjective moral truths are any more useful than no moral truths at all. Under subjective moral values, we have no reason to think that a person like Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot actually did anything wrong. Sure, you can appeal to the moral values of the specific culture, but why think that's a good standard on a relativistic view?LK also misunderstands what I tried to argue with the witch analogy. I wasn't arguing that since science shows X to be the case about witch burning, it shouldn't be done. I was arguing that if the advocates witch burning make an assertion, then it can be easily be proved true or false by factual analysis. That doesn't tell us anything about the morality of witch burning, it just tells us about the reasons given for why wich burning is moral. My point with this analogy was to show that moral values aren't just ideas in people's heads that can't be falsified or proven. Indeed, there are factual reasons behind these values, which can be justified.Future Calculations and QuantificationMy response to the future caculations argument works equally well on the quantification argument, so I'm going to group them together.To frame what LK said in the last round, it is very difficult to asses the future consequences of our actions. For this reason, he rejects the idea that the morality of our actions is determined by their consequences, because you never really know the consequences. I agree with this assertion, but I don't agree with the conclusions that LK makes from it.Consequentalism is a statement about the status of moral truth. To put it into more complex terms, it's about ontology, or the foundation of morality. Consequentalm isn't a claim about how we come to know moral truth, which is called epistemology. The argument from future calculations is only an argument about epistemology, and that's not topic of the debate. LK can prove that consequentalism has a difficult epistemology, but it will never show that it's an unsound ontology.Sam Harris articulates this view well in his book. In it, he makes a distinction between 'no answers in practice' and 'no answers in principle'. How many people were bitten by mosquitos in the past five seconds? We don't know, and there's no way of knowing. Yet, this would not lead us to believe that there is not a number of people who were bit by mosquitos in the past five seconds. Obviously, X amount of people were bit, even if we're not in the right epistemic position to know how many. This analogy is the best response to LK's analogy about saving a baby from a river.Is-OughtI think it's trivially easy to show the connection between is and ought. An is statement is just a statement about reality. Sentences like 'It is the case that atoms exist' or 'It is the case that I am alive'. If we are to make an ought statement, they must contain is statements within them. If they don't, then the ought statement does not correlate to reality by definition. The only way you could make any ought statement is with reference to is, so the distinction doesn't exist.What is morality?LK brings up the issue of pain--what if pain has utility? This question is not a threat to a consequentalist view at all. As another analogy, consider chess. A principle like 'don't lose your queen' is a great strategy to play the game by. But sometimes, losing your queen is a great plan that actually wins the game for you. In the same way, pain can actually maximize well-being. Nobody would suggest that vaccines or surgeries don't improve well-being simply because they cause pain. It's more important to focus on the long-term context of well-being.The fact that the are various and competing ideas of well-being does not refute consequentalism either. Firstly, like LK's other arguments, it's epistemological rather than ontological. It's also easy to see how some subjective ideas of well-being are objectively wrong. Anybody who think that the complete destruction of all conscious creatures would maximize well-being is wrong because they would eliminated all paths to happiness.Think of physical health. The definitions of physical health are subjective, and constantly changing over time as society advances. Yet, we would never be tempted to argue that a morbidly obese man who won't live past the age of thirty can be healthy.Conflicting ideas of well-being does not mean that there is no actual well-being. LK's argument assumes that if there is conflict over an issue, then there is no objective answer. But how does this logic apply to things that are obviously true? If I say that voodoo practices are justified by physics, and Victor Stenger tells me otherwise, there must not be any truths to be known about physics! LK's logic would lead us to accept this conclusion, but the conclusion is overtly false.Concluding Points- Moral truth exists- There is a distinction between epistemology and ontology.- There is a distinction between no answers in practice and no answers in principle.- Is can be connected with ought- Pain can be beneficial to maximizing well-being- Competing ideas of well-being does not mean well-being does not have an objective componentVale!