Utilitarianism Is Good

Thanks to Wiploc for starting this debate. I'll point out that this is for the final round of Weirdman's tournament. I interpret the word "good" in the resolution to mean "morally righteous" (1). This is just to avoid semantical confusion.Now to the arguments.1. Inconsistency critiqueThere's several examples of Utilitarianism being used in similar moral dilemmas, but yield entirely different conclusions. For instance, Examples of "good" Utilitarianism:1. A trolley is coming to hit 5 people. You press a button which directs it into 1 person, saving the other 5. 2. A terrorist is going to use a bomb to blow up Washington DC, so you torture him for the deactivation code.3. For no reason at all, a man is going to kill your entire family, so you kill him first.Utilitarianism justifies these things, which seems fine. But change the wording of the scenarios, and the conclusions become completely different.Examples of "bad" Utilitarianism:1. Snatching a random person from the street to kill him and harvest his organs for 5 terminal patients. Pro would say at one point that no one would want to live in a world where this happens, but we can make this an isolated incident that no one will ever know about.2. Grab a random person, subject him to highly dangerous medical experiments in order to advance our knowledge of human anatomy. 3. Force somebody to strip and run around naked, to amuse everyone who sees him and provide some good laughs.In all of these scenarios, someone is being forcibly hurt, and someone is forcing the harm onto them. There's also a net benefit achieved in all these situations, yet common sense tells us that the first 3 examples are justified where the last 3 are not. Utilitarianism says all these actions are justified, but this shows inconsistency because its obvious that the moral rightness of the last three scenarios is questionable at best. C2: Date rape critiqueUtilitarianism says the actions that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number are morally correct. In that case, unnecessary violation of human rights becomes moral. For instance, Utilitarianism would justify use of the date-rape drug, as the rapist gains sexual pleasure, and the victim isn't even awake to experience it. There's a net gain of happiness, but clearly this is wrong. Whats interesting is that this example can become paradoxically worse. Imagine if instead of 1 person carrying out the date rape, its a 5-man gang bang. In this case the net happiness produces is multiplied by five, but instinct tells us that this scenario is even WORSE than the former. What in the world...This also applies to other situations where happiness is unfairly extracted. A psychopath who gains pleasure from abusing other people would be justified as long as his victims are sedated to not feel any pain. And necrophilia doesn't actually hurt anybody...C3: Justice critiqueUtilitarianism fails to account for whether the beneficiaries of happiness actually deserve it. For instance, Utilitarianism would kill one innocent person in order to save 5 serial killers. So long as the murderers wouldn't kill again, Utility would accept this. Not cool. Flip the situation around. I'd say its justified to kill 2 Death Row inmates to save one innocent child. But Utilitarianism doesn't see it this way. It looks at mere numbers and makes a purely statistical decision, failing to take Justice into account.C4: Consequence critiqueUtilitarianism disregards the actual intent people have in pursuing an action. If I try to kill the president, but my attempt ends up inadvertently saving his life, Utilitarianism considers this a positive action. It doesn't account for the fact that my intent was evil, and that I actually meant to kill somebody. Similarly, if I meant to save the president's life, but end up killing him in the process, thats considered a universally bad action even though my intent was good.Imagine if our justice system worked this way. All cases of second-degree murder would be punished with life in prison or worse, even though the death was purely accidental. When evaluating morality we must take into account the actual intent of our actions and not measure them purely by what end result they bring. C5: Overpopulation critiqueUtilitarianism says we have to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Under this logic, everyone should be forced to have 10 or more babies so that we can increase the amount of people in the world who can experience happiness. This would lead to a highly overpopulated world where everyone has no choice in whether they actually want kids or not. In this sense, Utilitarianism violated the principle of free will because it forces actions on us that we may not be willing to take. C6: Donation critiqueUnder Utilitarianism, my opponent would be forced to donate all of his money and possessions to third world Africa. My opponent's money would save countless lives from starvation and increase the quality of life for even more, which outweighs the now penniless life Pro will have to live. Similarly, thousands of other people would be compelled to do the same thing, because a net benefit is achieved. But clearly my opponent doesn't want to do this, nor does anyone.These six arguments are enough for now. Lets look at Pro's arguments.Overview:1. Consequentialism states that actions are good or bad based off whether their end result is good. Utilitarianism is a specific form of consequentialism; it defines what a good or bad result actually is. But for Utility to be morally correct, my opponent must first justify consequentialism. However, he never justifies why the end result of action should be the sole thing we look to when determining morality. Utility looks at whether the end result (happiness produced) is correct, but he never explains why we only look results and ignore intent. Thus he has not fully upheld his system of morality. 2. My opponent never explains why happiness itself is inherently good. In reality, happiness is just a series of chemicals passing through the brain in a specific pattern. Pro doesn't explain why chemical reactions are objectively moral. "Because it feels good" won't suffice as that merely appeals to subjective emotion. This is a huge flaw in his case, as happiness is what Utilitarianism is based upon, but its not upheld in Pro's constructive whatsoever."Utilitarianism Is Good"My opponent's case mostly just appeals to emotion and begs the question, rather than using logical justifications. For instance, his opening paragraph states that helping people is good and not helping people is bad. However, this is just a blank assertion. This is true only if Utilitarianism is true, and as explained in the overview, pro really hasn't justified the tenets of Utility in the first place. Thus, this begs the question.Pro also states that even Kant's morality might be based off Utilitarianism. Except, I'm not defending Kant's morality, I'm only criticizing Utility in this debate. Pro also states a few times that the point of things like Christianity and Authoritarianism is to make people happy. Again, this isn't a justification.1. The point of Christianity and Authoritarianism is to increase happiness2. Therefore, Utilitarianism is good.This is highly fallacious and is missing too many links to actually justify my opponent's moral system.Finally, Pro says that if I don't see the appeal of happiness, I'm a sociopath. Actually, I do see the appeal of it, but thats different from proving it as objectively good. Remember, happiness is just a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Just because it makes us feel good doesn't mean it has objective worth. If he just assumes happiness is good because humans like it, thats another appeal to emotion."Types of Utilitarianism: "My metaethical objections apply to all types of Utility my opponent's brings up.I await my opponent's response.