Resolved: This house prefers utilitarianism.

What's more important to you: the details of how and why you did something good, or the fact that you did something good? Consider that question as I jump through the hoops of parliamentary style debate. The resolution is "this house prefers utilitarianism". I represent the views of the government. The government side believes that this house prefers utilitarianism. The opposition, Manastacious, who put together this debate (thanks! ), will try to convince you that utilitarianism is not preferable. A key role for opening government (the first speech of the first round) is to define the terms of the resolution. The definition of "prefer" ought to be easily agreed upon as "would rather use X" or simply "likes X more". Unfortunately this little word tries to put the government side at a disadvantage as we do not yet know what the opposition will choose to pit against utilitarianism. Fortunately, utilitarianism is an adaptable and focused philosophy, and can withstand attacks from whichever lesser philosophy Manastacious may choose to draw upon. "This house" and "utilitarianism" require more substantial definition. For those of you unfamiliar with parliamentary debate (which is nothing to bother about as some have referred to it as a dying style), "this house" typically refers to "us" or the people in the room. For the purposes of an online debate, 'this house' will refer to the debate. org (DDO) members observing. Thus, if more of you prefer utilitarianism after this debate, as I believe you should, the government side will have won. If you do not prefer utilitarianism after this debate, then sadly, the government side will have lost. Understanding utilitarianism will be paramount if you are to follow this debate. To be perfectly honest, before accepting this challenge I hopped over to YouTube for a quick introduction on the topic. Now, having read more thoroughly on the topic, I shall give you as clear an explanation as I can. Before I go on, I'd like to take a sentence to give credit where credit is due; Englishman John Stuart Mill, continuing the work of his mentor, Jeremy Bentham, fathered the philosophy of utilitarianism in the 19th century. Even if you haven't heard of utilitarianism before, you likely have heard of they saying "the ends justify the means". If you prefer utilitarianism then you believe it is not the actions themselves, but the impact of those actions that is judged. Take two imaginary drunk drivers for example: Jake and Sally. Jake knows you're not supposed to drink and drive, but he does this at least once a month and hasn't had a problem yet. Jake gets in his car, drives drunk, and arrives home safely. Sally also knows you're not supposed to drink and drive, but she is sick of all the drama and doesn't want to wait for her sober friend to finish flirting. Sally gets in the car, drives drunk, and crashes into another car, putting the other driver in critical condition. Who do we hate more: Jake or Sally? Sally of course! Other philosophies would claim that both Jake and Sally put lives at risk and so both are bad people. If you are like me and think that Sally is worse than Jake because her actions hurt another person, then you prefer utilitarianism! I'd like to clarify that utilitarianism does not condone drunk driving. Martha is a utilitarian. She is also drunk. Martha has to decide between driving home intoxicated or calling her mother. As a utilitarian she weighs the risk of causing physical harm to herself and others against the risk of being berated by her mother. As a utilitarian, Martha would call her mother. The example of Martha leads us into another way Mill explained utilitarianism: math. He believed in achieving "the greatest good for the greatest number". Think of it this way: the impact an action has on an individual involved ranges from -10 to 10 (-10 being horribly affected, 0 being neutral, and 10 being wonderfully affected). Imagine a scenario where a man is sent to jail. He feels his life is ruined, his wife feels betrayed and files for divorce, and their two children are negatively impacted. On the other side, the arrested man's victims find relief knowing he is behind bars, and all who would have been future victims unknowingly benefit. As this is merely an explanatory example, let's make the math easy by sticking to multiples of 5. The impacts on the man (-10), his wife (-10), and their two children 2 (-5) add up to -30. The impacts on the five victims of the man 5 (10) and the ten would have been future victims 10 (5) add up to 100. Overall, arresting the man led to a positive impact of 70. It was good that this man was arrested because it created the greatest good for the greatest number. Now that we are all on the same page about utilitarianism, I can move away from definitions and on to my favorite part, argumentation. As I slipped in earlier, utilitarianism is an adaptable and focused philosophy. Utilitarianism is adaptable in that it allows for questionable, but necessary, means. Other philosophies get sick to their stomachs at the thought of doing evil for the sake of good and condemn all things done by evil as evil. This is not the case. If you could save someone you care about by committing a lesser evil, wouldn't you? And would not that be good? Yes, as the impact would be good. An adaptable philosophy is key to guiding humans through right and wrong, because as humans we do not live in a world of black and white, but compromises and leaps and grays. Utilitarianism allows for a greater variety of means, all in order to achieve a good end. On that note, I point you to my second argument: utilitarianism is focused. Utilitarianism is focused in that it cares about what really matters: the end. The methods taken to achieve an end won't matter at all if the proper sacrifices aren't made and everything falls apart before the good end can be reached. Some claim that the method, the means, the journey, call it what you will, is more important because it defines us. I put to you " what is the point of developing your morality by taking proper means, if you allow yourself and others to take harm in the process by focusing on flimsy philosophies rather than the good end, the greatest good for the greatest number? Do not let other philosophies contort logic until it seems almost feasible that turning a blind eye is proper or that all forms of lying are wrong. Stay focused on what really matters: the end. You might be thinking, utilitarianism is clearly preferable, what could the opposition possibly say? Well, some have claimed that utilitarianism is merely how states defend extreme action. Manifest Destiny may have been defended by some with utilitarianism, but their math was wrong. The suffering of the Native American peoples in the past, the lasting negative impacts, and the mar on American history far outweigh the benefits of expansionism. This leads me into another point, that the weight of how good or bad an impact is can by subjective according to the culture, but that I shall save for the next round. If you'll recall, at the top of this opening I asked you: 'What's more important to you: the details of how and why you did something good, or the fact that you did something good? ' I hope that you know see, if you did not already, that the impact of an action is more important in the grand-scheme of morality and personal choices, than the motivations that lead to that action. To reiterate this, I'll spin you one last tale before passing the spotlight on to Manastacious. A terrorist, or as he calls himself, a freedom fighter, has honorable intentions and steals himself to go through with his brave sacrifice. Weaker philosophies would allow him to think of himself as moral, utilitarianism would not. A terrorist attack kills bystanders, breaks families, and triggers paranoia against any associated with the terrorist's country, religion, and sadly even phenotype. The good of the freedom fighter's statement is outweighed by the bad of the innocent deaths and lashed out paranoia that involves even more innocent parties.