Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

4C1: On Star Trek 4C1A: "Star Trek is a fictitious TV show .... that ... people can reference[.]" 1: Star Trek is like a thought experiment; it can be referenced to add to real-world discussion, but is not inherently true. 4C1B: "Star Trek is cool." 1: Yes, but this doesn't make its morality accurate. 4C1C: "Star Trek ... raises ... ideas ... first interracial Kiss ... Secular humanism ... cell phones ... automatic doors. It spawn a technological revolution and inter-racial harmony[.]" 1: Raising ideas is not the same as philosophically defending them. See 4C1A.1. 2: The Industrial Revolution began in the 1700s, the Information Revolution in the 1930s, and Star Trek in 1966. Which spawed which? 3: The "first" interracial kiss is kind of correct, kind of not [1]. --- 4C2: Definitions 4C2A: "[Y]ou present an Argument by Definition, in which you redefine ... Utility ... vague ... no longer ... originally meant and can ... many (sic) anything. .... [Utility] is ... 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'[.]" 1: As far as I can tell, an "Argument by Definition" (there are many and varied uses of this term) is here "an argument in which one or more terms are defined in such a way as to effectively be an argument for the speaker's position," [2]. Seeing as my definition of utility isn't geared to make people believe me, I don't think this applies. 2: While I have defined utility and utilitarianism, let me remind everyone that Con has not yet defined what "secular humanism" is whatsoever. In terms of vagueness, Con outweighs. 3: Utilitarianism is "the greatest good for the greatest number". How do we measure "good"? Via utility. I have provided a reason why my definition of utility best maximizes value in 2P1, and thus should be preferred as the best definition of "good". 4C3: Against 2P1 4C3A: "[Y]our ... deontological argument by 'utility' ... lacks a why. You ... say ... Utility ... may serve an end, but ... fail to justify ... that over ... equality or love, or education or ... truth." 1: I provided a reason to support maximizing utility in 2P1, where I proved that it maximizes potential value. Inherently, value must be maximized, and hence by extension so should utility. 2: Why does Con give me the burden of comparing Utilitarianism with EVERY other possible value, when this is an impossible burden and one that I don't need to fulfill? Con needs to prove other entities to be valuable in order for me to need to compare them. 4C3B: "Secular Humanism, starts with multiple lines of reason ... and truth is an ideal[.] ... Like science more lines of research ... is better then (sic) ... one." 1: Since we still don't know what secular humanism is, we don't know if this is true. 2: Further, Utilitarianism encourages scientific and philosophical research on all issues from all perspectives, to encourage better decisionmaking. Why would it stifle this research? 4C3C: "[M]ore ... Int[elligent] Beings is best ... because less people [are less] likely to find ... ethical system[.] None of this is proof ... Utilitarianism is the best system." 1: I have proven that utilitarianism maximizes potential value, which is all that we know is valuable. No other system comes as close to maximizing potential value as utilitarianism, proof that utilitarianism best increases value, and thus is the best system. 4C3D: "Under Unitarianism (sic) life is the ultimate value (sic). .... Utilitarianism does not value life ... it values Utility[.] 1: I didn't actually add the second "(sic)" there, Con did. I'm not sure why. 2: Utility is that which maximizes potential value, primarily through quantity and quality of life. Life is required to maximize potential value, and thus for utility, which is why utilitarianism values it. 4C3E: "Utility and Life are not ... factors in my life ... meaning is subjective[.] ... [Y]ou still haven't present (sic) ... why Utility is better then (sic) my values." 1: Subjective opinions do not matter in a debate over objective values. 2: I have objectively proven in 2P1 that utilitarianism objectively increases potential for value, whereas Con has not proven that Con's opinions maximize value whatsoever. Hence, utiliarianism IS more valuable than Con's values. 4C3F: "Except by ... changing the definition. .... [I]f you redefine the term, you make ... your argument useless." 1: When have I changed the definition? I have used the definition of utility that I have provided for the entirety of this debate, I have backed up why it is the best definition, and it is not significantly different from other definitions of utility. 4C3G: "Utilitarianism does not handle values, it handles utility. It ignores notions of justice or ethics[.] ... [Deontological arguments are a red hearing (sic) ... but you haven’t answered why[.]" 1: Utility is what is valuable in utilitarianism, hence it is a value, hence it handles values. 2: Note that I cannot compare Con's system to my own in this area, because I still don't know what it espouses. 3: Justice and ethics are just ways of determining value, so it IS a system of justice and/or ethics. 4: Further, "notions" of justice and ethics are subjective and unimportant. 5: I have answered why. See above. 4C3H: "[T]his is ... a judgment ... you came to by some standard." 1: The fact that knowledge is uncertain doesn't really require proof, IMHO. 4C3I: "You ... say Utilitarianism is best, ... which ... can also be tested. So you can test ... ideas[.]" 1: Yes. This is what we are doing now, and Utilitarianism is holding up quite well. 4C3J: "Slavery is permissible as is forced organ donation, as a secular humanist, this would not be permissible. You can in the name of UTILITY commit genocide, or forced sterilization or even let an individual go to jail innocent if it was for the sake of utility," 1: I have answered slavery earlier, pointing out its inefficiency and that Spock could easily have just given them his knowledge. 2: Forced organ donation, as I think we have addressed in this debate, would lead to nobody ever going to a hospital and a massive health loss. 3: Why would a theory that attempts to keep people alive ever support the mass killing of people? The ONLY instance in which genocide would be acceptable is if it was in order to prevent greater genocide, which is rather unlikely to ever occur. 4: Why would you sterilize people? 5: Having flawed court systems would lead to people not trusting the courts and making them effectively useless. See how African Americans views and are treated by the American justice system. 4C3K: "Your assumption ... more people thinking on a problem ... more likely to answer it. .... [A]rgument from popularity is not a valid argument[.]" 1: If the likelihood of solving the problem is related to the available mental processing power, then having more people and more thinking DOES aid the ability to solve difficult problems. Science has worked quite well on this principle. 2: An argumentum ad populum is "a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it," [3]. I'm not arguing that Utilitarianism is true because people think it is true; I am arguing that it is true because I have objectively proven it to maximize value. Similarly, I am not arguing that, if many people agree on what is valuable, that they are correct, merely that they have more available mental power to find problems in their own approach and expand available knowledge. 4C3L: "You fail to answer any of my question ... you switched to different lines of thought ... a ... humanist way to accomplish your goal. ... [T]his debate is a secular humanist approach to discover what its (sic) true matters[.]" 1: Every round I have answered ALL of Con's questions. Perhaps Con should use examples instead of just asserting that I have not? 2: Con still hasn't defined Secular Humanism, so we still don't know whether it actually uses different lines of approach. 3: Further, as I have proven earlier, Utilitarianism is not opposed to using reasoning and multiple lines of thought, making this non-unique and thus not a secular humanistic debate. 4C3M: "[Y]ou may have a hard time contrasting ... because you keep changing your definition and not the `vagueness of mine``[.]" 1: Again, WHEN have I changed my definition? It's remained constant through this debate. 2: Seeing as Con hasn't defined Con's philosophy in this entire debate (or even told of how it comes to ethical conclusions), it's quite hard to contrast it. 4C3N: "[Y]ou say you don’t understand BOP, but ... used it [in] ... other debates. You have asked ... to provide a better system[.]" 1: When did I say that I didn't understand BOP? 2: The "better system" requirement wasn't a BOP argument. I was asking that Con provide another ethical system, so that we aren't just attacking utilitarianism but comparing two systems, because I prefer that kind of debate. 4C3O: "Slavery ... stealing organs ... following a rule blindly ... no starter for secular humanism. Any system that would permit it ... by its own definition is less then a system that is against it." 1: Again, we still don't actually know what secular humanism states, so we don't actually know that these actions are prohibited. 2: Con STILL hasn’t proven that any of these actions are good OR bad, and so it can't make a system less or more than another. --- Summary: I have proven that utilitarianism best maximizes potential value, that it best avoids internal value conflict, and that it best works in public policy. Con has not substantially attacked any of these. Con has provided an undefined philosophy that appears to mimic current Western societal values (and purportedly includes even basic logical discourse, an unfair and baseless claim), without providing substantial, objective reasons to prefer it. Vote Pro. --- References: [1] http://www.neatorama.com... [2] http://issuepedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...