[Your preferred theory of ethics] is tenable when examined closely

RE: The Impossibility of Calling a Method of Moral Decision Making WrongCon has conceded that he/she cannot prove that the results of a Utilitarian moral examination are incorrect and that he/she could not possible claim that the method of moral decision making is thus flawed or incorrect. This point stands and unless Con takes back this concession, will be a primary reason why I win this debate.Con states that no conclusion at all can be drawn from an 'interpretation of Utilitarianism' but Utilitarianism isn't meant to be interpreted when it's used. When you use the moral decision making method, you apply it to a scenario. Con has yet to prove that one can't use Utilitarianism. All Con showed is that Con's personal view of the man in the hospital leads him/her to be confused about whether or not the man should be operate on. This is a flaw of Con's ability to calculate which route of action results on more overall benefit, not with Utilitarianism. I concluded that since the laws make it so that he man must be operated on, this would be the course of action taken as it causes less unrest and less displeasure overall. Con's inability to use Utilitarianism does not prove Utilitarianism to be flawed but rather Con's capability of using it.I never agreed with this, I said that if Utilitarianism happens to conclude that both routes of action result in equal overall suffering or gain, then the hypothetical scenario has not given enough background information to conclude, the error would still be with the information given, not the way in which it is used.Con says that he/she can never prove Utilitarianism to result in an incorrect outcome but instead is saying it can't come to any outcome or conclusion at all, this is not only false but Utilitarianism has been so applicable that entire legal systems were founded upon it. From the slave trade to the back and forth battle between freedom of speech and urge to avoid verbal bullying, Utilitarianism is a vital part of most legal systems even to this date (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...).RE: The Moral Method and The One Applying It are Separate EntitiesCon never explains why the blue hat method of determining right from wrong is flawed. Thus, Con has merely given an extra scenario where my point stands true. The one using a moral decision making process should not blame the process for their inability to conclude that is good/evil or right/wrong.RE: Most People Will Conclude the Same Result Using Any MethodSince many who use Utilitarianism would not be perfectly effective at doing so, the errors and inconclusiveness any may draw from using it would be impossible for Con to prove is the fault of Utilitarianism as opposed to the user of it.RE: The "We Can't Know The Consequences" Point Is IrrelevantI have refuted a primary point of Con and Con has conceded it. Nothing more to say.RE: Laws and UtilitarianismThere are examples of Utilitarian-fuelled riots and protests but in the example Con gave to show how flawed Utilitarianism is, he/she uses a man who the hospital is legally obliged to treat using the money of people who were in the first place legally obliged to supply to the government for the 'greater good'. The law shows no significant threat to overall wellbeing of society and thus the law itself existing is further reason for the Utilitarian method to conclude that treating the man is the 'good' option. There is no reason to deem this inconclusive at all.If taxpayers were truly suffering, it's inevitable that they'd stop funding the Government and overthrow it, the fact they obey the law of taxation is furthermore reason why it's an easy clear-cut case for the Utilitarian method and a very poor example to show any flaw with Utilitarianism at all.RE: Con's SummaryCon gave no true imaginary scenario here and instead mentions random things like releasing serial killers and killing people to get their organs. Even if this was deemed good by Utilitarians, Con has to first show that it is not actually good and then after that show that it was the error of the Utilitarian method as opposed to the one applying it that led to the false result.