Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

3P0: Definitions 3P0A: “The definition of value ... is ... contradictory to utilitarianism.” 1: The definition doesn’t really affect the debate; value is that which should be maximized. 3P0B: “ ‘Utilitarianism: ... right conduct should be ... usefulness of ... consequences; specifically ... the greatest happiness of the greatest number[.]’ “ 1: Con’s definition is fine until the semicolon. Utilitarianism is not inherently based on maximizing happiness, but the public good [1]. This can be seen in the definition of the word “utility”, or “the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial,” [2]. Utility is that which maximizes the public good; different philosophers have different views of what this is. As the IEP states, “Hedonistic Utilitarianism is rarely endorsed ... mainly because of its reliance on Prudential Hedonism as opposed to its utilitarian element. Non-hedonistic versions of utilitarianism are about as popular as the other leading theories of right action, especially when ... the actions of institutions ... are being considered,” [3]. Some of this confusion may come from Bentham and Mill’s use of happiness in their calculations of utility [1]. Regardless, I do not use happiness as a measure of utility; as I have pointed out in 2CVD, I base utility on that which maximizes potential value, namely that of increasing probability of determining value, and that through quality of life. (See 2CVD for further subsections of my definition of utility.) --- 3P1: Moral Uncertanity 3P1A: “Utilitarianism ensures ... uncertainty, unless ... consequences are ... certain.” 1: If one knows how the impact of a consequence and the probability of it occurring versus the probability of another consequence occurring, one can multiply the probability by the impact to determine the actual value of said action and choose said action. Most actions (stealing a car, saving a baby) have large-scale, probable, immediate impacts (broken rules, more lives). Most actions (stealing a car, saving a baby) also have large-scale, improbable, and/or long-term impacts (nuclear holocaust, cure for cancer). However, these improbable events can be effectively discounted, because they are so unlikely that their actual value is very, very insignificant. Moreover, they will likely cancel out with other very, very unlikely events with a value in the opposite direction. Moreover, any action is unlikely to cause significant deviation from what a world without that action would have been in the long-term, and so one can ignore much long-term impacts for small actions. 2: By “moral uncertainty”, I do not merely mean that, under some ethical systems, we may not know what to do; I mean that, epistemologically, we do not actually know what is actually valuable, because we do not have perfect knowledge. Unless Con can objectively prove that something is value, we cannot assume that anything is valuable; in this lack of value, the only thing we can do is maximize potential value and attempt to find value. 3P1B: “Utilitarians value sentience ... because pleasure and pain is important to utilitarians. However, life ... has no intrinsic value[.]” 1: Utilitarianism within this debate is nonhedonic. See 3P0B.2. 2: Life has instrumental value because it increases the probability of determining value. 3P1C: “[T]he conflict of reason and sentience.” 1: I don’t see a conflict between reason, or “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic,” [4], and sentience, or “the ability to experience sensations,” [5]. 3P1D: “[T]he ... reason for ... values: to find ... values.” 1: I have justified this. See 3P1A.2. --- 3P2: Value Conflict 1: Con does not address that multiple values often conflict with each other and make decision-making impossible, as I show in 3C2B and C. --- 3P3: Rule Utilitarianism 3P3A: “Rule Utilitarianism collapses into Act Utilitarianism. ... [T]his incident could justify lying as the greater good[.]” 1: Rules also have utility, and violating them reduces that utility. If everyone always acted towards the public good, then people would steal from stores whenever it would increase their wealth more than it would decrease the storeowner’s. However, if everybody acted like this, nobody would open stores, and the total utility would be far less than one where anti-theft laws were enforced. Only in situations where violating an anti-theft law would generate more utility than the loss of utility from the now-weaker-from-less-enforcement rule, such as stealing a gun in order to stop a suicide bomber. 3P3B: “If genocide ... better consequences, then ... morally right.” 1: Utilitarianism attempts to keep people alive and well, not to mass-murder them. Genocide would ONLY be justified to prevent a far greater loss of life. 2: Con makes moral assumptions about the badness of genocide. As agreed in Round 1, “No assumptions are accepted ... without proof.” Note, however, that I am not arguing that this action is correct. --- 2C1: Against Consequentialism 2C1A: “[A] ... woman was raped ... by three men[.] ... [U]tilitarian ... take into account the pleasures experienced by the three men.” 1: Utilitarianism within this debate is nonhedonic. See 3P0B.2. 2: Even from a happiness-based calculus, the suffering and death of the woman far negatively outweigh the pleasure of the three men. 3: Con makes moral assumptions about the badness of rape. See 3P3B.2. 2C1B: “[T]he only people that ... did ... were sociopaths. .... A utilitarian ... leave ... train un-switched if ... five are orphaned babies ... nobody cares about, and ... one is a member of One Direction. Utilitarianism revokes ... autonomy.” 1: According to Con’s source, Con means psychopaths, not sociopaths [6]. Further, Con’s source asserts merely that psychopaths do push, rather than that only psychopaths push [6]. 2: 18% of those tested would push when asked in their native language, versus 44% when asked in a second language [7]. Apparently psychopathy comes and goes with language. 3: Only ~1% of people are psychopaths [8], though 18% would push [7]. According to Con, at least 1 in 5 are emotionless murderers. 4: One Direction has negative utility, and babies positive. Push away! 5: Con asserts that Utilitarianism removes autonomy without providing a reason. Further, Con makes moral assumptions about the goodness of autonomy. See 3P3B.2. 2C1B: “[C]an a person be ... responsible for that which is out of their control? ... [S]hould ... action be defined on ... calculation, or actual consequence?” 1: No. Hence why we don’t punish people for not stopping earthquakes, and do for starving their children. Why is this a problem for Utilitarianism? 2: Reeducation should be based on calculation. Driving drunk is a result of a bad calculation in need of reeducation. Nothing else should matter in terms of criminal courts, etc. --- 2C2: Alternatives 2C2A: Contractarianism 1: Con provides a description, rather than reasons to accept. 2C2B: Human Rights 1: See 2C2A.1. 2: Any system of rights faces the value conflict problem of 2P2. Imagine that I must either remove one person’s right to X or another’s right to Y. If both are equal, then I cannot choose, and am stuck. If one is more important than another, this implies that there is a higher a way to judge which right is more important, which means that a system of rights relies on another, higher level of morality, such as utilitarianism, and are not a moral system in themselves. 3: Further, rights provide no limit; why only certain rights, and not others? This, again, implies a higher level of morality, to determine what should and should not be a right. 2C2C: “Kantian philosophy is ... beautifully constructed[.] .... Because humans share rationality and freedom of reason ... morality is also known. .... ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ .... ‘[T]reat humanity ... always ... as an end.’ ... This ... takes away ... rational autonomy ... violating the first categorical imperative.” 1: Beauty is not truth. 2: Please show how the existence of rational, free humans makes morality known. 3: Kant’s First Formulation relies on non-specificity. While action A, or “stealing”, if universalized, would result in a non-existence of property rights, action B, or “stealing on Wednesdays while wearing a red shirt in London at the Tea & Spices Shop during a lunar eclipse”, would not. All one must do to evade the First Formulation is define actions as extremely specific. What is too specific and what is not? Kant provides no method. 4: Kant’s First Formulation is absurd. Action C, “making a poor person not poor”, if universalized, would result in a (at least temporary) non-existence of the poor, making Action C immoral. So, in fact, would ANY action that causes a complete change. Action D, “promoting my entry-level employee”, would result in a non-existence of entry-level employees, making Action D immoral. This is ridiculous. 5: Imagine that I must choose between stealing or lieing. Which do I do? See 2C2B.2. 6: Kant’s Second Formulation relies on the First, which has been proven absurd and contradictory. (And the unstated Third is pretty much the First.) --- 2C3. Choose Alternatives 2C3A: “The alternatives ... put people in control, and hold them responsible.” 1: Unlike Utilitarianism how? 2C3B: “[M]orality ... in consequences. ... [W]hat if the outcome is wrong?” 1: See 2C1B.2. 2: Well-intentioned actions can cause harm, and vice versa. Utilitarianism recognizes this. --- References: [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism#Utilitarianism [2] google.com/search?q=definition+utility [3] iep.utm.edu/hedonism/#SH1f [4] google.com/search?q=definition+reason [5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience [6] youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ [7] nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/moral-judgments-depend-on-what-language-we-are-speaking.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 [8] livescience.com/16585-psychopaths-speech-language.html