That Utilitarianism is Untenable

Refutations:Mere Addition ParadoxP1 – Conceded.Ex. N/AP2 – Rejected.Ex. Inferiority or superiority is a measure of worth of an object. Utilitarianism states that the action which produces the greatest overall pleasure is the most ethical action. This does not specify whether or not the society itself is better. For instance, let us take a group of two people and compare them to another person. All three people have identical levels of happiness, and we’ll ignore cascade effects.What utilitarianism tells us is, in the event that we are forced to choose, we should choose to sacrifice a single person rather than two other people. It doesn’t say the group of two people is ‘better’. They aren’t. But, to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Unpleasant, of course, but nevertheless true.So, according to utilitarianism, if we are given the choice between dooming Society A+ or dooming Society A, we should choose Society A to doom. Indeed, again ignoring cascade effects that a given group might have on another group, it is immoral to sacrifice a larger group for a smaller group. While the lives of the people in the larger group might be worse, that can be changed. Moreover, calculating the exact amount of pleasure someone has is de facto impossible—there’s a fair bit of fuzziness, so personal judgment calls are involved.P3 – Also rejected.Ex. First, this assumes that we’re calculating things based off means. That isn’t necessarily the case, we might decide to base it off median, for the same reason we often use median income rather than mean income.Secondly, I of course again view my opponent’s argument as equivocation. I might regard the societal norms of a society as more ethical, or regard the society as doing more ethical things. I might also regard the lives of people under a society as better off. But, in a British-empire like example, I would regard the imperial power, despite being better off, as less ethical than those they rule over.P4 – Rejected.Ex. See above.P5- Accepted, but I do not maintain that society is better.Ex. N/AC – Utilitarianism is still tenable.The Utility MonsterP1 – Accepted.Ex. N/A—in theory. The problem comes when treating this as a serious proposal. The fact is that no such entity exists. This is equivalent to asking whether a hammer would be useful in a world where nails were made of clay. (Credit to Alonzo Fyfe at Atheist Ethicist for the metaphor). It wouldn’t, but that doesn’t affect my argument. We live in a world where society does not gain the most total happiness by allowing sadists to do whatever they please. Moreover, the existence of machoists, who receive pleasure from pain, gives sadists a safe outlet. So, arguably, do video games.P2 - Accepted.Ex. N/AP3 - Accepted.Ex. Again, I take issue with the explanation. There is no such being. It is equivalent to critiquing the use of calculus by asking what would happen if 2+2=5! Ethical and moral systems are meant to guide us as we make decisions in the real world, not in a thought experiment which presupposes impossible notions.P4 - Utilitarianism does not presume them.C - Utilitarianism is still tenable.An.1) That isn't entirely true. Compassionate pleasure is better than sadistic pleasure (usually) because it helps other people.2) Certainly. But while he might be worthy of pleasure, that doesn't mean that we are oblidged to assist him in harming other people, or to attempt to discourage unethical behavior and encourage ethical behavior by withholding pleasure.3) Again, not necessarily. This could easily be dismissed by using a median measure of pleasure rather than an average one.Moral LuckP1 - Accepted, if we take actions for which they had control to mean any voluntary action. And if by 'blame' we mean 'regards the person as having done something unethical'.P2 - Rejected.Ex. People can account for their luck when making their decisions about their actions. For instance, if I attempt to do good things and fail miserably every time due to incompetence, it really does matter that my intentions are good to the people I inadvertantly kill.Now, one might ask about exceptions, but I would argue that the function of the emotions we associate with blame to discourage future mistakes. If it is truly a fluke, then while your action might have been unethical per se (and I personally would argue that utilitarianism can incorporate probabilities to say that the most ethical action is the one that is most likely to do the greatest good, but that isn't given in the definitions so isn't applicable here unless my opponent says otherwise), feeling shame and similar emotions is pointless: You are not going to do it again, and would not have even without any shame.Moreover, we might ask whether a true fluke can be considered to be the result of one's own actions, or the actions of other people. For instance, if I am a doctor, with good success rates, and I operate on a patient who has been shot and fail to save them, the person who shot them is more at fault for the death than I am. In Pro's example, it's not B's fault (assuming B has no choice but to flip the coin). It's the fault of the bastard who made the coin flip in the first place.C - Utilitarianism is still tenable.An. Praise serves to encourage us to do certain actions. Unless someone is so incompetent that I can rely on them to do good things when they try to do bad things, I see no reason to encourage someone to do things that lead to a high risk of bad things happening.The Trolley ProblemP1 - Accepted.P2 - Accepted.P3 - Rejected. What are these exceptions? Who says that we are maintaining P2 in every single case rather than as a general rule of thumb?C - Utilitarianism is still tenable.An. Of course it's up for debate. If we never bothered to question our ideas, we'd be stuck in the Stone Ages.