Consequentialism is the most justifiable ethical theory.

Thanks, it has been a pleasure. So there are two main concerns within this discussion. There is a moral issue, and an ethical issue. The moral issue disintegrates in the final analysis, because of what I noted in my second argument - neither of us has a unique claim to the moral system under discussion, conceded by both of us to be "Actions are good when they create good in the world." I haven't been arguing very strongly for some kind of more elaborate ontological construction, rather I have been attempting to appropriate that moral stance under an ontological view. I have succeeded to the best of my knowledge. You say: "What I mean to get to is that the fulfillment of wants is good. ... It's not meant to be any kind of universal truth or divine type idea, it's merely what people want." The trouble is that even if it is not -meant- to be a universal truth, that is what you are outlining. Every instance in which your rhetoric becomes "this must be true" or "this is always true" or "definitionally" you are, tacitly, conceding an ontological truth as the basis for your consequentialism. You note my strategy as lacking an illustration that "anything is intrinsically or a priori bad." To which I would respond twofold. First, I do not have to, I merely have to indicate that something is intrinsically good, which I have by agreeing with you that actions which create good, are intrinsically good. Because good is intrinsically good, and thereby any action that creates it is consistent with an ontological morality that only has that one dictum. Secondly, I could argue that any action that creates disutility is -intrinsically- bad by being connected to disutility. So again, we are at a draw. I must argue for a system which produces good results in the world, and thereby I am arguing for a utiliatarian system. You must argue that utility is -always- good, intrinsically good, and good without exception. That makes you argue for an ontological system. What this wash on the moral level leaves us with, is the second concern - Ethics. Ethics are different than morality insofar as they make no truth claim on the nature of the universe. Ethics are system that attempt to -achieve- morality. Their measure is therefore in efficacy, not in truth. It is possible, bearing this in mind, to have an Ontological Ethics that supports a Consequentialist Morality. That is what I have justified in this round. I have justified by appeals to common intuition, by statements of accessibility to those being taught the ethical system, and by pointing out some of the difficulties in a strictly utiliarian ethic. I think you answered a lot of those difficulties admirably, but since the moral issue is one that can't particularly impact the round, and it was primarily claims of moral truth that informed your ethical analysis, I think I win the day. Saying that the "underlying reason why we select your "Ontological" rules rests on consequentialism" is not an argument as to my Ontological Ethics being less effective, and thereby less justified, then your utilitarian ethical system. No one uses Utilitarianism in a way that doesnt just look like Ontology. No one gets out the calculator and goes: "ok if I tell my friend his boyfriend is cheating on him that will create 60 point of disutility, which I can offset with the generally utile outcome of honesty worth 70 points of utility." What we do instead if ontological. We employ an ethical system in which we use intuition (which, yes, vary, although perhaps less widely than you indicated) and we say to ourselves: "this is the right thing to do." That is the ethical system that is most easily justified, because its the one that works like we want it to. Underlying this is the Consequentialist position, yes, we all want things to work out well, but underlying that is the Ontological position - things working out well is universally, unfailingly, the right way for the world to work. All we really have is our intuition. It is intuition that solves the problem of causality, of free-will. We rely on our intuitions to tell us that Modes Ponens works. What we do then when we are constructing an ethical system is pick one that works, that feels correct, and that we can teach to others to gauruntee a perpetuated morality. It is this that is easiest to justify, and this isn't Consequentialism. Thank you for an excellent debate.