Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

"Europeans and Americans thought they were maximizing happiness for the Africans because 1) they thought they were already being overly kind to "animals" and 2) the Africans were already being enslaved by other Africans and being a slave in Europe/America was much better than being a slave in Africa. Also, they were maximizing happiness for themselves because they could leave most of the hard work to the slaves. We know now that the Holocaust increased suffering, but Hitler and the majority of Germans believed they were maximizing happiness by ridding the world of lesser beings. So both these examples show the immorality of utilitarianism." You just completely ignored the definitions of "moral system" I posted. And my opponent still continues not to explain how the Holocaust was "minimizing suffering". I also would argue that it is inaccurate to say that the reason these actions are immoral is not because of utilitarianism, but because of the inaccurate assumption that there are in fact "higher" and "lesser" people. "The topic is "Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system" but utilitarianism is not a moral system much less a self-consistent moral system. So although the debate is not about whether it is ideal or even good, whether it is moral or not must be involved for the debate to work. Again, the topic says "Utilitarianism is a self-consistent MORAL system." Utilitarianism cannot be a moral system if it is not moral." Yes, it can. I explained the definition of "moral system" that I would be using in R1, yet you continue to ignore it. To reiterate: "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct; religious morality" "Example: You are texting and driving and when you look up, you see five kids crossing the street in front of you. It is too late to stop so your only option is to swerve to the side but if you do you will hit one kid reading on the sidewalk. In this case, you only have to choices, hit five kids or one. Although it is neither choice is right, it is most likely that you will hit the kid on the sidewalk because you would be saving more lives." In a utilitarian mindset, yes. Now let"s change the situation. Instead of five kids crossing the street, there are felons and you are aware of that. Instead of child reading on a sidewalk, there is a well-known philanthropist checking the time so he doesn't see what is going on. Which would be moral? If you kill the philanthropist you will have saved five lives but the philanthropist is now no longer able to help more people in need. But if you kill the felons, you have no idea whether they have changed their ways or not. You may have destroyed five lives and families. In this case, neither choice is more moral than the other. You don"t know which choice would bring greater happiness to more people and thus proving my point that morality is immeasurable and so are the moral systems." Here is the thing. If you change the premises, but keep the same fundamental logic, you are going to come to a different conclusion. Anyways, a system does not have to make a statement on absolutely everything to be self-consistent, unless you want to argue that climate change theory is inconsistent because it doesn't explain why gravity exists. "Also, if something is meaningless without backup or examples, then I should win this debate because my opponent has no evidence, sources, or examples." BOP is on you, as I established in R1. "This is unrelated to my point so this attack is void." It is not related, because both of the examples of subsections of utilitarianism only fulfill one criterion without consideration for the other. "But if consistent means in agreement and not contradictory, the different kinds of utilitarianism must agree with each other to be consistent." This is not true. To apply this thinking to another situation: Say two people like cars, but one person likes Toyotas better than any other cars, and another person likes Hondas better than any other car. The two claims are inconsistent with each other, but the root idea of "liking cars" is still SELF-consistent. "3 Reliable; steady: Utilitarianism is not reliable or steady since the Holocaust, slavery, Stalin"s genocides, and many more horrible things were justified using utilitarianism." These things can only be seen as utilitarian if one takes the view that there are in fact "superior" or "inferior" races (as the perpetrators did, but I do not, and I am sure my opponent does not either.)