Resolved: This house prefers utilitarianism.

Once again, thanks to the opponent for agreeing to this debate. For any number of people the sheer number of rules that I laid out so that I could replicate the parliamentary debate style would be off putting, so I appreciate that the Government has taken the time provide what has turned out to be an excellent round of debate. The debate between deontology and teleology (Utilitarianism) is one that has been going on for centuries amongst philosophers, and here in this round we can see a number of the greatest arguemnts for and against both sides being brought up in this debate round. As this is my final speech, I am going to go about quickly dismantling the Government’s arguments before summing up the arguments that have bene made in this debate and provide succinct reasoning as to why you must not prefer utilitarianism. First, I would like to present one final new argument as to why we must vote down utilitarianism: it seems good from a third party omniscient point of view, but in the moment, utilitarianism provides no moral weight. There is a certain beauty to being able to look at issues from a philosopher’s point of view. We know what is going to happen with each action, and therefore it is easy to defend a view like utilitarianism. However, in the real world, that is something that just does not happen. When we are stuck in a moral conundrum in the real world, we do not know what is going to happen such that we can easily make the best decision. In fact, because Utilitarianism is entirely based off the idea of what happens at the terminus of decision making Utilitarianism can provide us with no moral judgment at the onset of an action and provides with only ex post facto morality. Looking over the style of DDO, it seems that the members prefer a very direct refutation of the ideas presented in speeches. That direct argumentation was missing in my last speech, so I will provide that quickly here. On the argument that Utilitarianism is more flexible that deontology, we can see that the government is wildly twisting the rules of utilitarianism for his own defense. The government says that Kant does not believe that there are any moral grey areas. However, this is not really a critique of deontology. Utilitarianism does not provide for any sort of moral grey area either. For both theories of ethics, there are certain things that are worse to do than others, but in neither of these theories of ethics are there the sort of *meh* conclusions that we would see with virtue ethics or other theories. On the argument that Kant’s view of lying. This is something that is often misconstrued. Here, the Government would have you believe that a man should tell the truth when asked where the location of a murder plot is. However, let us apply the test of the Categorical Imperative to this idea? Can you consistently will that in every case someone tells the truth that leads to the harm of another? What if the person who will be harmed is you or someone you care about? We cannot consistently will this maxim and therefore the Categorical Imperative does not confirm that it is a moral thing to tell the truth in that situation. Again, this is another easy twist of deontological views. Finally, on the argument that every culture is allowed their own weighing of goods and evils and consequences. The Government paints this as a strength when it fact it is a damning weakness. These are the kinds of “ethics” that allow cultures to rationalize genocide. These are the kinds of ethics that allowed Hitler to rationalize the holocaust. When we allow cultures to relatively place value based on their own ideals, we open ourselves up to all sorts of moral atrocities that are, once again, intuitively incorrect. For this reason alone, if this is the type of Utilitarianism that my opponent wishes to uphold, by all means we must negate the resolution. Now to the defense of the case. The Government would like you to believe that the example that he offers of the -10 to 10 scale is one that is simplistic in nature and only designed to provide a quick example as to how the ideas of Utilitarianism would work. And the Government wants you to believe that the attacks that I presented upon this idea are simply a straw man. However, this reaction of the Government’s illustrates exactly why he does not want you to think that this is true. However, regardless of the number at the extremes of the scale, in some way and in some form, if there is a large enough group of people even slightly aided, pleasured, helped, or benefitted from a massive loss of one person (e.g. death), then Utilitarianism justifies that pain because in the end there was a greater utility produced. This line of argumentation, though it was not presented as an argument but rather as an explanation by the opposition, is all the more reason that it is important. If we find that there is a moral repugnance in the idea that a large amount of minimal pleasure can be used to justify a murder, we must negate. Let us delve further into the three cases that have been presented. My opponent argues that these examples are exactly the reason that we must side with utilitarianism. However, let us examine this more closely. In the case of Jake and Sally, it seems clear that there is some muddying of the facts. The Government does the duty of providing us with the example of Martha. The utilitarian who decides not to drink and drive. First of all, good for her. This, however, does not do the work that the Government wants it to. In the world of utility, the Government argues that Jake is indeed condemnable because he “sets a bad example.” This is playing right into the hands of the deontologist. There is no way in which the “setting of a bad example” is a consequence. There is no one to observe Jake’s action of drinking and driving. The only manner in which Jake is a bad example is in some broad existential sense. Let us examine this case in the eyes of the Utilitarian because perhaps I was wrong before. The Utilitarian may reach a different conclusion that I said before. What happens when Jake drives home drunk? He kills no body. Gets into no accidents. He gets home. The only thing there is a positive. Jake is now home. That is the only consequence of his driving home drunk. So, in the end, not only is Jake not condemnable for his actions, he is morally praiseworthy because he created greater utility by driving home drunk. So, unless, in some grander existential or DUTY-based sense (deontologically), it seems that the utilitarian should have nothing to say about what Jake does. And in arguing for this idea that Jake is a bad role model, the Government is playing right into the hands of Kant. The next argument that my opponent presents is, perhaps, the strongest argument that could have been presented in my favor. The opponent argues from a stance that there is a greater goal of the human being in the case of the “experience machine” and in the case of the “medical dilemma.” Now, the Government team calls these a “greater goal” because he does not wish to call them exactly what they are: duties and rights. These are the things that deontology is based off of. So, in arguing for this idea of what the government calls “rule utilitarianism,” the Government muddies the idea and argues for deontology. At this point, where the government is advocating for deontology, it seems that there is no other choice but than to negate. Let us sum up this debate. There are a few key arguments—all of which the Opposition is winning---that lead you to conclude that we must negate the resolution and say that this house does not prefer utilitarianism. 1) Look to the examples of the “medical dilemma” and the “experience machine.” In attempting to argue for “rule utilitarianism,” the Government directly appeals to the ideas of deontology to pursue the point of utilitarianism. At the point where the Government is defaulting to deontology to explain the crazy world of utilitarianism, you must negate. 2) Look to the cultural relativism argument coming out of the Government’s last speech. These are the ethics that are used to justify moral atrocities because they are simply in line with the culture’s ethics. When we look at the impacts within the round, you must vote down any ethical theory that can be used to justify murder on a mass scale because of culturally relative ethics. 3) Look to the argument that the Government would have you believe to be a straw man. At the point where an ethical theory can be used to justify murder, even on a simplified scale, we must negate. To conclude my real portion of argumentation, I would simply ask you, the judges, to weigh the arguments that we have presented and the points of order that will be brought up in the comments section. Please do not allow the Government team to bring up new arguments. Remember that we are arguing the following resolution: Resolved: This house prefers Utilitarianism. My opponent has defined this house as you the judges. Do you wish to support an ethical theory that would have you jump in an experience machine or could justify murder or even genocide? Would you vote for an ethical theory that claims that the only good and evil in this world are pleasure and pain? It seems to me that it is a universal acknowledgement that masturbation all the time is a good way to lead a moral life. However, when we reduce morality to pleasure and pain, what is there left to conclude. Thank you all for reading. Don’t forget to read Points of Order. Vote Opposition!A quotation from one of my favorite philosophers: (of course as a joke, not to be taken as evidence). The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. --Bertrand Russell