Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

Rebuttal Rebuttals:---2CPA: "[A]s a child ... though I did not know the name utilitarianism, I learnt it is wrong. .... Everything you need to learn about utilitarianimisimsmsms (sic) ... you can learn by ... Star Trek[.]" 1: Star Trek is ficticious. Why can the lessons learnt by watching Star Trek can be applied to the real world? 2: Star Trek (and most fiction) generally parallels what society views as moral. Why should we accept what society views as moral to be the correct morality? 2CPB: " 'The needs of the few ... outweigh the needs of the many[.]' " 1: Please provide a reason why this could be ever be true. --- 2C1A: "Ult (sic) handles moral by ... relegating it to a (sic) artificial point system." 1: Please provide a reason that this is inherently wrong, regardless of the consequences. 2: I have proven that maximizing potential value through maximizing probability of determining value is the only currently valuable entity in 2P1. Given that maximizing this requires determining how much any given action changes this probability, isn't this point system justified? 2C1B: "You could have an entire society based on ... slavery ... and ... follow ... Ult (sic). .... [I]t ... does not value personal rights ... consent is never given ... [y]et ... follows ... Ult (sic) [.]" 1: Under utilitarianism, rights help maximize utility by allowing (a) greater trust in government and other members of society and (b) greater ability to run one's own life, which is usually done at better efficiency than when run by other sources. 2: Slavery is generally less lucrative than free labor [1], due to lost opportunity costs of stifling human capital and growth [1], slower technology adoption rates [1], and inhibition of trade [1]. Slavery was only profitable whatsoever in the South due to the cotton industry, which remains more profitable today than in the past. As such, it would be rejected in the vast majority of nonfictional circumstances, because it reduces utility. 3: Within this specific instance, using a technologically capable person to fuel a developing species's development is obviously quite a large utility gain. However, there is no reason why slavery would be required in this instance -- why not send economic developers, engineers, scientists, and teachers to help development, rather than a space explorer? 2C1C: "[P]leasure ... is not a moral precept, but valid for Ult." 1: I define utility not as pleasure but as quality of life, which makes pleasure generally unrelated and less important than other issues. For example, the lost opportunity potential of all the people being tortured. Why is pleasure the correct definition of utility? 2C1D: "You"re applying a nonsensical assumption to an invalid question. .... [T]he quest for humanity is ... inside the ... mind[.] .... [N]ot even a question to a Ult (sic) as it may cause distress or civil disobedience[.]" 1: If 2P1's logic is invalid, please do show the problem with it. 2: Introspection is likely to increase the ability to run one's own life and the chance of determining ultimate value. It might also cause civil disobedience, but that's not extremely likely, and would likely only occur if a government isn't maximizing utility anyways. 2C1E: "[T]he [Borg] planet ... has billions of additional people on it ... education ... and life span ... increased[.] I ... argue ... the less desirable ... is the right thing to do." 1: Why? --- 2C2A: "Your ... only showing two, and ... shift the burden of proof to a negative sum." 1: I've asked you to provide a better system, one that would do better in this problem, to solve any problems with the limitation of available choices. We'll see how it fares. 2: I shift the burden of proof to a what? I've only heard this in game theory, what does it mean here? 2C2B: "[T]o (sic) logical people can arrive at vastly different answer as to validity of a specific act. .... [I]f everyone arrived at different conclusions and were free to act on own interpretation you would have no rule at all." 1: In theory, if provided an infinite amount of time, all logical people should arrive at the same answer, making it applicable to all people. 2: Why does this matter? 2C2C: "[O]ld people ... pain at the end of life is unwanted ... and financial burden[.]" 1: Are you talking about euthanasia? What's wrong with letting old people off themselves, or offing people who are so infirm that they can't possibly add anything to society but hardship? 2C2D: " '[F]ix a ship so ... drugs ... or ... stop the drug trade an (sic) cause ... pain to individuals for a short term ... for the betterment of following generations.' " 1: See 2C1C.1. 2: Drugs here probably are reducing utility, and should be stopped. 2C2E: "How does you Utilitariansims best hand this conflict between values." 1: What conflict between values? How do we determine which show to watch? Whoever can grab the remote and keep hold of it, as per standard family procedure. 2: Choose whichever show most maximizes utility. 2C3A: "[U]tilitarianism is impossible to fulfill, lacking knowledge[.]" 1: If you know nothing, then you can't make any ethically informed decision in any ethical system anyways. 2: If you know something (which you ALWAYS will), then you can estimate the probabilities of certain occurrences occurring and their magnitude. (Like how policy is actually done.) 2C3B: "To shape decision, either by committee or individual would be required, in which case you have democracy, or dictatorship or republic." 1: What? This is true, but how does this matter? 2C3C: "ULT (sic) ... falls to arguing perspectives ... omniscient is impossible and differing opinions are a bases for debate." 1: See 2C3A.2. --- 2C4A: "Utilitarianism ... has one rule, and everything is judge by it." 1: Yes. And? 2C4B: "Similar to religion, it relies on its own justification to justify itself,. Nor could there be a debate about it, because ... critics would imply a flaw in the original assumption." 1: Please pinpoint the circular logic of Utilitarianism. 2: We're debating about it now, aren't we? And I've defended the "original assumption" of maximizing potential value, which is definitionally true. What alternative do you have? 2C4C: "Ult (sic) does not account for variety of pleasure, intensity or comparative ... it derived a total sum on a Spread sheet." 1: See 2C1C.1. 2: Utilitarianism does account for differences in duration and magnitude of effect. A law that saves $5 billion is better than $4 billion; a cure that works for 5 years is better than 4 years. 2C4D: "[P]leasure can justify ... pain. Raping a women for ... removing the child ... to ... a privileged life is better in the eyes of a Ult view[.]" 1: See 2C1C.1. 2: See 2P3. A society where anyone can get raped will have a breakdown of order and loss of utility. Further, the mental and physical trauma of the woman is certain to outweigh any pleasure of the rapist. The increase of number of lives is insignificant if there's no real society for them to be born into, which destroys any utilitarian gain from rape. 2C4E: "Ult (sic) does not account for quality of life, only amount of life of intelligent creatures." 1: See 2C4C.2. 2: World A has 10 people and 10 per capita utility (quality of life). World B has 100 people and 1 per capita utility (quality of life). World B is far less likely to determine ultimate value, and World A would be preferred. (A world of scientists and industrialists is more likely to determine ultimate value than subsistence farmers or industrial workers.) 2C4F: "[D]efinition of utility if vague and can be twisted to various misleading moral problems." 1: ... Such as? 2C4G: "Happiness is not an end[.]" 1: See 2C1C.1. --- Note: My opponent doesn't really define what "secular humanism" is, or what it states is ethical. It's hard to argue against something so vague. 2C5A: "Secular humanisms (sic) prices human inquire (sic) and evidence[.] ... [W]e admit ... we may not be best system possible, at least the possibility of finding it is possible, where ult is a dead end perspective." 1: "[W]e admit ... we may not be best system possible[.]" 2: I've proven in 2P1 that utilitarianism maximizes the chance to find the best system possible. Why would we choose one that merely allows it to happen when there are better ones available? 3: Util values inquiry, science, and evidence. How else would one make decisions but to be informed? 2C5B: "Secular humanisms place trust in provable and demonstrable evidence and logic. It rejects ideas shows to be false or un-defendable. As such it is a system (not a pronouncement) and it grows and has a chance of self-correcting if found wrong." 1: See 2C4A.3. 2: Why wouldn't Util reject false ideas? They don't maximize utility. 2C5C: "Secular Humanists have a more realistic view of ... strengths and limitations and ... are grounded in science ... are much better equipped to make effective ... changes[.]" 1: See 2C4A.3. 2: Why does utilitarianism over- or underestimate human strengths and limitations? 3: Since I don't know what SH proscribes, I can't compare its effectiveness to Util. 2C5D: "We value peer-reviewed research, to make accurate claims about how the universe actually functions rather then what it ough to be, which is silly, or should be which is wishful thinking or made up which is religion." 1: See 2C4A.3. 2C5E: "Secular Humanism allows for great flexibility and a ... deeper understanding ... of the world." 1: Unlike Util how? 2C5F: "Secular humanism evolves over time as additional information is added[.]" 1: See 2C4A.3. 2: Unlike Util how? 2C5G: "Secular Humanism prefer Star Trek over [S]tar [W]ars ... philosphy (sic) ... ULT (sic)." 1: Unlike Utilitarians how? 2C5H: "[U]ltiamafarism (sic) is a pain to spell." 1: No comment. --- References: [1] http://www.economist.com...