Utilitarianism can properly uphold the value of justice

Thanks for the swift response, bluesteel. It is an honor to debate such a formidable opponent.Definitions: The only definition my opponent contested was utilitarianism so I will briefly go over it. My intention was not to make my opponent advocate for the original definition but the purpose was to exemplify the sole purpose of utilitarianism, to maximize happiness. His definition was somewhat abstract for he does not identify what this "goodness" is. The "goodness" by every philosopher and anytime one is discussing utilitarianism is happiness. Yes, you can endorse what type of utilitarianism you like, but it always revolves around net happiness. We should not further discuss definitions. He concedes to my definition of justice since he has no response so the voters can use my definition, giving each their due.Observation: Deontology and the CI are two different things. I do not have to win the CI debate to win this debate. Again all that is required for me in the resolution was that utilitarianism can not uphold justice, not that the categorical imperative can. Even if utilitarianism is the best way that doesn't mean you have won, it simply means there needs to be a hybrid of systems or another alternative but that is irrelevant. I think it is clear to the voters I don't need to win the CI debate, it's just another way for him to try to lever and contort the debate towards his side, disregard it. Keep in mind it's not my obligation to uphold justice, it is his. I do believe the CI is the best way to uphold justice and will defend it just to accommodate my opponent's request to make it easier for the readers. Defense of C1My opponent does not even respond to the core argument here. The contention was portraying how utilitarianism goes off of net "goodness" or happiness. He does not justify how this justifies the morality but rather poked at my genocide and doctor argument by saying it would go off of what most people "prefer". This is where my opponent commits two fallacies: Presumption and the 'Democratic Fallacy'. He first is presumptuous because he states that most people would not want to live in a world under genocide and most people wouldn't want serial killers however at the point at which genocide is even questionable, we can not know what the people want. The point is under utilitarianism this is acceptable because the people who practiced genocide had a larger net gain of happiness and goodness. He also commits the Democratic Fallacy because he assumes that the arbitrary majority consensus is what justifies the action. So essentially because they believe it should be a certain way and they prefer it one way, it can should be that way. At times "most" people preferred slavery and racism and saw it acceptable. This is a basic fallacy and is not a direct argument. Bluesteel has not yet responded to the contention and justified "happiness" so at this point he has technically conceded since he isn't justifying the happiness, or utilitarianism. Equality and the VOIBluesteel brings up a new argument, the veil of ignorance. He states that we should pretend that we should ignore who we are (race, gender, etc). I agree, justice is a universal concept. However this is blatantly contradictory with what he is discussing. If we are really using the veil of ignorance, we must assume that you might be that 5% that has to get murdered or whatever action is required by utilitarianism. In this circumstance the veil of ignorance would tell us not to commit that action, as would the CI. Thus the veil of ignorance has no apparent leverage either way. The only real argument against utilitarianism disregarding equality (which it does by definition) is that giving each their due is considered equal opportunity. I agree here again, but util does not advocate for such a venture. It states that the net gain is what matters, so whatever has a greater impact matters. That means that disregarding the smaller impact is acceptable thus not achieving equal opportunity since you wouldn't be giving them their due. He states that I am ignoring the greater good, which I am not. He again commits presumption when he assumes there is a "small" benefit. Pillaging a village and taking over the Native American land had HUGE net gain for the majority. This was a greater good and is perfectly acceptable under utilitarianism. We see no direct argument here because by principle giving everyone their due is impossible under utilitarianism because it by principle disregards a certain number. Does consequentialism justify morality?His response to the economy argument is the same thing he has been doing throughout the debate, attacking the examples and avoiding the sole fundamentals the contention is discussing. Read my earlier responses for this.Pro asserts that immoral intentions resulting in moral outcomes is true "depending on the circumstances". Not only does this make him a moving target but it disregards justice. Justice does not revolve around "special circumstances". Justice is a universal concept and justice and laws are determined by moral obligations, principles, definitions, etc. He brings up abortion saying that the outcomes are better. He needs to justify how preventing another being from LIVING is a moral outcome. This is not a moral outcome. Thus he has not yet justified this. He discusses bombing and terrorism but this asserts that there is no alternative, when deontology tries to work around and be moral beings rather than "screwing the pooch" and deciding to act. He needs to bring forth a tangible example, not one in the mind of bluesteel. A majority of my examples such as genocide were practical circumstances. In defense of the moral intention to immoral outcome argument he states that it is false simply because util only looks to "expected outcomes". It is incomprehensible to understand how saving someone "expects" that one will save the person. If we only look to "expected outcomes" we would rarely save a being since normally people fail in saving other people due to the immense task at hand. So if I am trying to save someone, but it is likely that I wont, this action is not justified by my opponent's theory. Imagine a world where one would operate under calculations and not save our children because most likely we won't. That my friends, would not be justice. He later attempts to turn my mental enfeeblement argument around by stating that the CI would not accept this because it is murder. Non-consequentialism goes off of moral intentions. Because the person of mental enfeeblement is irrational and does not have any definite intention, this is not a immoral action and is acceptable. I would like Pro to clarify his defense of the "insanity defense exception" for it is somewhat abstract. Property FlawPro goes on to discuss utility and makes a somewhat abstract response. The point is, as he agrees, it is acceptable to allow the company to dump the chemicals because it has a greater total utility. Thus it is moral to infringe upon another individual's property rights. This is not justice because it does not respect the universal rights every individual has. At this point it is apparent he can not uphold justice since he can't uphold rights. As far as competing rights goes, the more just solution will be preferred because we are discussing justice. CIExplained earlier. Rule ConsequentialismPro yet again commits the democratic fallacy. If X people prefer to kill everyone and blow up the world under his theory, this acceptable under what he is advocating. He goes on to say that util is both quantitative and qualitative but he simply misses the point. Util goes off of the NUMBER of goodness, not the quality of the goodness. It does not even justify what this "goodness is". Pro hasn't justified his "goodness" and has distorted the universal concept of justice so at this point the only viable vote would be for CON. I now await bluesteel's final summary.