Utilitarianism can properly uphold the value of justice

Thanks for your response Cameron. == Definitions == My opponent doesn't quite seem to understand what the term "utility" means in economics. It's not accurately characterized by the word "happiness." Utility has to do with the total benefits that one derives from an action. On "justice," I don't take issue with my opponent's definition, but do take issue with what it means to "give each their due." == Observation == Any system is better than none. If there is no way to evaluate competing rights claims, society breaks down. If my opponent fails to show how the CI can evaluate claims of competing rights, he loses. Remember, the factory wants to emit X level of CO2. Environmentalists want it to emit Y level of CO2. The people who are affected most by global warming want the factory to emit Z level of CO2. Utilitarianism tells us how to evaluate this situation. Deontology does not. Since util is the *only* way to uphold justice, I automatically win. No matter how bad my opponent thinks this system is, it is always going to be better than nothing. My opponent says a "hybrid" system might work, but if util is necessary to uphold justice, even if it incorporates aspects of deontological rights, I still win. I already showed how rule consequentialism can lead to the incorporation of deontological rights if a world with deontological rights is better than a world without them. My opponent concedes this point. In this way, I capture 100% of my opponent's offense, by solving for genocide and murder, while providing the flexibility that deontology lacks and allowing competing rights claims to be evaluated. == Equality == It's still not even clear what my opponent means by "equality." If he wants people treated equally, regardless of which group they are a part of, the veil of ignorance solves this entirely. My opponent does concede that the veil solves his objection. He says, "In this circumstance the veil of ignorance would tell us not to commit that action, as would the CI." So the veil of ignorance prevents minority groups from being harmed because under the veil, one would not know whether one is part of that minority group or not. Since rule consequentialism incorporates the veil of ignorance, it solves for minority rights. I don't need to prove that the veil of ignorance is *better* than the CI in this regard, just that it solves *this particular objection* as well as the CI. My opponent talks about "stealing Native American land," but this is just another objection solved by the veil. Next he says that util disregards a certain number of people. This is *inevitable* when rights come into conflict because one group is going to like the outcome and one group will not. == Do I commit two logical fallacies? == Presumption: under the veil of ignorance, it's not presumptuous to think people would not want to be murdered or have genocide committed against them. Democratic Fallacy: rule consequentialism asks whether objectively a world with rule Y is a better or worse world. If we pair the veil of ignorance with measures of total net utility, we will achieve the best policy for people, regardless of where in society they fall. == Does consequentialism justify morality? == Let's consider another way deontology fails. Consider the following: two conjoined twins have only one heart, which cannot pump blood to both their growing bodies. If they are not separated, both will die. If we separate them, the one that keeps the heart lives and the other twin dies. We have killed one twin to save the other. Deontology would not allow us to kill one twin because murder is "always" wrong and would instead needlessly allow both the twins to die. My opponent says that I rely too much on "the circumstances." He merely twists my words. What I said was that all we *should* care about, universally, is whether the *outcome* is moral. The precise problem with deontology is that it allows moral intentions that result in immoral outcomes. Our intention is to never kill or torture another human being, but to uphold this moral value, we let an entire village be murdered and we allow a bomb to kill 1 million people. A system that *sometimes* allows "immoral intentions" – whatever that even means (this term is incoherent to a consequentialist) – is preferable to a system that allows immoral outcomes. My opponent claims that deontology attempts to "work around" these circumstances, but deontology has no "workarounds." Deontology states that we cannot use other humans as a means to an end. No matter what. My opponent is also confusing "intention" with consequences. He seems to be defining an "intention" as "expecting a certain outcome," such as a father intending to save his son. My opponent judges intentions, also, by expected consequences. This is functionally the same as utilitarianism. The only slight wrinkle is that people can have the best of intentions and still do horrible things. A rule consequentialist would say that you should not attempt medical interventions if you are not trained. My opponent would say that is okay for an untrained person to have attempted CPR on a passed out boy, even though the boy was diabetic and feinted from low blood sugar and the person killed him by cracking his rib cage and crushing his heart. But that's okay, according to my opponent, because the person *intended* to save his life. The US had the best of "intentions" when we perpetrated the Trail of Tears: we thought we were protecting Native Americans from encroaching settlers. Intentions can go very bad. My opponent quibbles with my use of "expected outcome," by which I meant "objectively most likely outcome." He claims we'd never attempt to save someone because it is hard to do so. Not only is this not true, but even if something is hard, that doesn't mean we expect to fail. Lastly, in the previous example my opponent gave, the dad died trying to save his son. If there is no chance of the dad dying, a rule consequentialist would say that if there is no downside, one should always attempt to save another person's life. My opponent talks about the criminally insane killing people. He claims because their intentions were "pure," they should not be held culpable. Apparently, in his society, insane people can go around murdering freely. A rule consequentialist would conclude that we should allow an insanity defense, where if someone cannot tell the difference between "right" and "wrong," that person will be institutionalized rather than going to jail. But we don't let them go free because their intentions were "pure." == Property Flaw == Quite simply, my opponent loses the debate here. He asserts that under his advocacy, a company can never emit *any* chemicals because it infringes on another's property rights. However, this is impossible. Companies can *reduce* their CO2 output, for example, to socially optimal levels, as determined by net utility, but they cannot reduce output to zero. My opponent's deontological advocacy leads us to destroying our economy. The EPA regulates chemical emissions, but none of the acceptable levels are at *zero.* Clear Pro win. My opponent's system is too extreme. == Rule consequentialism == Util is qualitative. If a certain policy provides 10 "utils" of satisfaction to 2 people, this is still preferable to a system that provides 1 util of satisfaction to 19 people. Most people value their lives infinitely, so no policy that endorses genocide could ever be implemented, since nothing outweighs infinite (except another infinite). We look at both the qualitative aspect of how much good or bad is done to *each* individual and then look at the quantitative aspect of how many people are affected. However, utility can be measured objectively, so when deciding whether the world is better or worse with a certain rule, we don't need to appeal to the democracy fallacy. == Conclusion == Rule consequentialism looks at all the good things a policy causes and all the bad things it causes, weighs these against each other, and decides which policy creates the greatest net utility. Alternate systems, like deontology, completely ignore the consequences of the rules they enact. Deontology, while forcing you to uphold your good intentions, would not care if you refused to kill one person in order to prevent the whole world from being destroyed by a nuclear war. Deontology leads to rigid conclusions, such as "thou shalt not infringe on the property rights of another," resulting in absurd rules like "zero CO2 emissions." For the complex world we live in today, rule consequentialism is the only way to consider all the factors and reach the (pareto) optimal outcome.