Utilitarianism is flawed

Quoting my opponent… My opponent seems to have forgotten the point of this debate, he wrote the title and defined the terms himself, this is not about morality it is about utilitarianism. That’s why utilitarianism was defined but not morality, because we are discussing utilitarianism. Yes the lives of a few outweigh the lives of many. That is more morally desirable but is irrelevant. Utilitarianisms objective is the greatest overall good/happiness, and here my opponent openly admits that utilitarianism achieves it, the central point of the debate is not irrelevant. We're talking about the intrinsic moral worth of the action itself, not the outcome. While I had indulged my opponent’s arguments of morality, this is still a debate on utilitarianism not morality. My opponent may resent the actions leading to the results but has admitted that the best overall result has been achieved, strengthening my cause that utilitarianism works as intended and is not flawed. The problem of 'consequence verses motive' Despite my opponent’s claim to the contrary I have answered his question directly, quoting myself from the previous round… So child or not, the life of one will never outweigh the lives of many from a utilitarian perspective, even if its a little girl. If he wants me to elaborate than yes, in the situation he brought up, an unlikely chain of coincidences (a child playing with a gun that would have fired in a specific trajectory resulting in blowing up a gas station that just happened to be full of people) ultimately resulted in an overall good resulting from an act of violence Yes, from a utilitarian perspective that specific scenario ideally played out for the best. My opponent however misrepresents utilitarianism by implying that it condones the act of rape under those circumstances, the fact of the matter is the rapist would still be apprehended and given the death penalty regardless of the outcome, under utilitarianism the greatest good must be served and allowing a rapist to roam free to act again would be detrimental to society. My opponent goes on to assert that if no one found out it won't upset people and would be a good scenario. Yes, However it must be kept secret precisely because utilitarianism does not condone such actions in society. So regardless of how my opponent’s wishes to classify morality and immorality the result remains the same, such acts are discouraged and not encouraged, wrong doers must keep their crimes secret lest they be discovered and punished just as it has always been. My criticism of his argument is valid as demonstrated by my source, we agreed not to vote on sources so I am merely using them to validate my claims, my opponent has indeed invoked a fallacy to steer emotional bias in his favor, his argument is fallacious by relying upon emotional bias rather than rational reasoning. The problem of non-responsibility My opponent claims that I have asserted that… 1. Pros interpretation of utilitarianism is extremely bizarre. 2. Therefore it can't be true. False, anyone can scroll up and check I have never said his scenarios cannot be true, bizarre yes but I have still answered his questions regardless, I answered him plainly that one life does not outweigh many in response to his “little girl” analogy. I have entertained his analogies and not dismissed them, so for him to claim I have done otherwise is rather disingenuous. His ice cream analogy is overblown, he argues on the technicality of the definition but technically by the logic of his argument the person’s own mother is also at fault because if she didn’t give birth to him he never would have been able to lose his ice cream as he didn’t exist in the first place. The fact is there are many factors that lead to an outcome, we may argue that all factors play a role in the accident but ultimately it is the deciding factor that takes the blame, the guy could have just watched where he was going, Suggesting that the blame can be passed on any single factor no matter how minute the role is a gross exaggeration, and a strawman by definition. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid. This kind of dishonesty not only undermines rational discourse, it also harms one's own position because it brings your credibility into question - if you're willing to misrepresent your opponent's argument in the negative, might you also be willing to exaggerate your own in the positive?[1] The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculations Rules say I cannot bring up new arguments it doesn’t however limit me from responding to yours nor does it declare I drop by default if I do not answer in the succeeding round. That said my position here is the same as it always was so I’m not saying anything new anyway Utilitarianism as a philosophy is unflawed, it demands the greatest overall good result possible. In the imperfect world of human limitations we can’t calculate for every single variable with 100% accuracy, so we make do with the best course of action and improve upon it as we go. It is the most practical course of action My opponent has claimed Motivism to be superior yet he has never demonstrated how another approach would get better results The problem of the subjectivity of values My position was made clear each time this argument was brought up, Christians may seek happiness in heaven which is irrelevant, however the belief that they will go to this heaven gives them a sense of contentedness and security in their lives, which is a form of happiness as per definition. And even if we assume these people don’t want to be happy (which I doubt), they would be a minority that we could not please anyway (since according to my opponent they don’t want to be happy) so it would serve no purpose for the betterment of society to divert our attention to them, and we should focus instead on the happiness of the majority. Self-ownership objection If utilitarianism is true, my opponent should donate all his money to the poor since refraining to do so results in less happiness. If Communism worked then yes I would agree with you, but in reality that theory has proven false. This is why I brought up Communism in response to this query as early as round 2, I knew it would lead down this road. Giving up personal property ultimately leads to lack of productivity in society due to the lack of incentives, ultimately resulting in dissatisfaction which is un-utilitarian. Motivism doesn’t aim for the best “result”. How on earth would motvism value saving one life because it was your friends life over the hundred??? The act was done out of clear bias and immoral principles. Acting according to your own selfishness instead of acting selflessly for the good of society is blatantly immoral. Because Motivism judges intentions, the man did not desire the death of a hundred people he only wanted to save his friend which was a good intention and by Motivism standards morally good. My opponent did admit the action was morally good but also attempted to separate it from Motivism by claiming a more “morally desirable” outcome could have been achieved. This is a utilitarian perspective, Motivism is not primarily concerned with the result only that it was well intended, yet opponent ironically favors a utilitarian approach focusing on the best outcome, strengthening my position CONCLUSION I have demostrated Utilitarianism is the best system for the betterment of society through the logic of rational thinking and practicality. I have refuted all my opponents arguments and pointed out the flaws in his own My opponent focused on Morality rather than Utilitarianism, regardless of the Morality, Utilitarianism is unflawed in its pursuit of best possible outcome for the betterment of society. My opponent himself believes in securing the best outcome which is pro-Utilitarian My opponent relied on fallacies [1]http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...