The principle of Utility is true

===Summary and Conclusion===Morality and Meaning.Con's argument began by positing that when we speak of morality in everyday use, we really mean to refer to actions which inhibit or cause suffering on sentient beings. But as I pointed out, all this proves is that our thinking is either naturally biased to this type (which doesn't justify the existence of any actual moral properties in reference) or it appeals to a majoritarian line of thinking and thus commits the fallacy of appeal to the majority. Obviously not everyone adheres to this line of thinking proposed by my opponent, even if he could prove most people do. The very existence of deontologists, nihilists, etc. disproves this point. Furthermore, extrapolating actual conditions of the external world (like what is moral) from mere beliefs held by most people is intellectually irresponsible and is unacceptable in virtually every other field of inquiry.Morality and Objectivity.As I pointed out in the last round, my opponent's argument from the objective, physical neuronal basis of moral beliefs in the brain failed to take into account the different types of objectivity: physical and content. I conceded that all of our beliefs are objective in the physical sense since beliefs originate in the mind and the mind is a physical entity (thus providing an objective basis in the sense that blood is objectively real). However, my opponent's argument failed to actually justify the content objectivity of these moral axioms. According to my opponent's conception of what constitutes objectivity, even the most subjective beliefs (like those regarding a favorite color for example) would count as objective since they technically have an objective neuronal basis. The objectivity which my opponent defended is categorically different from objectivity in the relevant sense in regard to this debate. My opponent never responded to this point, therefore it is a concession as per the rules agreed to at the beginning of this debate it is a drop and thus a concession. Besides that Con never responded to my argument that if his "moral organ" developed naturally through evolution (and was not implanted supernaturally or exists simply metaphysically) then it is merely a natural organ and to extrapolate moral conclusions from it would make the same mistake which my opponent accused natural law theory of doing. Con also never responded to my point that he simply defined non-conformists (in regards to his conception of morality) out when defining morality in the first place, thus begging the question in his argument.Self Defeating Personalities.In his initial argument, Con argued that it would be contradictory to argue that pain is wrong when inflicted on one's self but permissible to inflict on others. Therefore, he argued, denial of the PoU is contradictory. As I showed though, this point only takes one possible example of how one would deny PoU and then generalizes it on to all possible PoU denial. But clearly we can conceive of a person who doesn't make this mistake in reasoning and either argues for the universal permissibility of pain or denies morality entirely. The denial of PoU CAN be contradictory. That is all this point argued. It didn't sufficiently show that it was inherently contradictory (i.e. in all possible conditions of denial) to deny the PoU, thus the argument fails.===I'd like to thank vbaculum for putting up an interesting case for the principle of utility and for making this a certainly interesting and challenging debate. I wish him the best of luck in the voting period but will of course argue for a Pro vote. ===