Since good secure more happiness, we should live good.

I feel like this debate has fallen into what I was fearing the most. I even mentioned at the start of the debate that defining what is good as what brings the most happiness is dangerous. Basically, it makes the statement we"re trying to prove or disprove circular. Instead of saying what is good leads to happiness, you"re instead saying that what is good inherently is what brings about the most happiness. It may seem insignificant, but there are subtle differences. So, I will act accordingly and adjust my points to cater to these slight differences. Response to the opposition"s rebuttal The opposition has rebutted my claim by saying that the owner"s actions will increase the amount of happiness but has not substantiated their claim. They merely state that looking at the broader picture will allow us to see that the act clearly brings about more happiness than sadness. But, how have they gone about and made that conclusion? Also, how do they know for certain that the owner"s actions actually lead to a greater amount of happiness before the act is committed? What if his act of consoling the dog leads to his suicide due to the immense amount of pain felt? Would these actions still be moral by their definition? By their definition, it appears that morality is determined by the end result. However, it is impossible to know the end result before the act occurs, showing the impracticality of aiming to do good, when the definition of doing good is bringing about the greatest amount of happiness. An act which could be intended to bring about happiness could in fact bring about misery. Do we ignore the intent of the actions or not? Also, I would like to clarify something regarding your response to my negro example. The negro example basically asks if you would rather have hundreds of people killed or an innocent man convicted. In your perspective, would you rather hundreds of people be massacred than to send an innocent man to prison? Are you saying that the resulting pain to the world from framing an innocent man is somehow worth more than a human life? I believe you need to further elaborate upon your belief. How does murdering hundreds of lives bring less pain than falsely sending someone to prison? I would also like to address an issue I have with your definition of good. According to you, good and bad are determined by the end result rather than by the intent. Let me present another hypothetical situation. A person throws a rock out of anger with the intent of physically injuring another human being without a good reason and instead it misses and hits a criminal fleeing police officers. The rock hits the criminal and knocks him out, but no lasting damage is done to the criminal. The police are able to apprehend the criminal due to the act of throwing the rock. By your definition, this would be a moral act, as it brought about the most happiness despite the malicious intent behind it. However, this definition completely ignores intent and thus is a flawed definition of what is morally correct. (Please ignore the fact that my apostrophes have turned into quotation marks. For some reason this happens when I"m reviewing before I post)