Resolved: Utilitarianism is a flawed moral ideology

In the interest of fairness, I urge that my opponent attempt to rebut only the claims that I have made in Round 2 in his Round 3 rebuttal. Now onto the interesting part:My opponent's entire case is based upon his critique of moral relativism. If this single point falls, then consequently, so does his entire argument. Due to this, I will spend the majority of my rebuttals attacking his point about relativism. RebuttalsMoral RelativismMy opponent's argument, in syllogism form, is as follows:P1. Moral relativism depends on the non-existence of moral truths. P2. Moral truths can be proven from the observation of realityC1. Moral relativism is false. P1. My opponent is mistaken in the notion that moral relativism implies no moral truths. In fact, moral relativism derives moral truth from the subjectivity of a culture's actions. In other words, moral truths are subjective across cultures. In Aztec times, the concept of human sacrifice was a culture-wide phenomenon, and thus was accepted as moral truth in that culture. In modern times, the concept of multiculturalism is often accepted by most cultures around the world, and thus within those cultures, the promotion or adherence to multiculturalism is considered as a moral truth. Relativism states that objective moral truths don't exist; that, however, does not transfer to saying that subjective moral truths don't exist. P2. My opponent states that "Moral values can be proven or disproved with reference to facts," using examples such as that "witchcraft does not exist" and "burning people alive as punishment might not be a great idea. "By doing so, he is trying to derive normative claims from descriptive claims, committing the classic and infamous Is/Ought fallacy. Even though science and mathematical analysis can tell us that burning people alive has negative repercussion onto society and it is not an effective way of preventing crime, it can, in no way, make the logical step between the "is" (burning doesn't work) and the "ought" (burning shouldn't be done). This by itself is a fallacy in its own terms because it implies that we should value "negative repercussions" and "effects that actions have on crime. " There is no objective standard by which my opponent can state that burning people is objectively and inherently bad. My opponent is somehow attempting to bridge the gap between what modern science can tell us and ethical claims as a result of these findings. These ethical claims are based on subjective values that have no objective value, and thus still support the concept of moral relativism. C1. This would obvious be true if the first two points were correct. Albeit, they weren't. Furthermore. .. My opponent claims that moral relativism is self-contradictory because it implies the universality of tolerance for other cultures. He could not be further from the truth. The end result of relativism is the implication that all cultures and moral statements have no objective value whatsoever. Ergo, culture X and culture Y cannot be classified as objectively better than culture Z. However, my opponent tries to make an erroneous logical leap that implies that all cultures should be treated equally- this is simply not the case. Although in some cases, individuals might decide to be tolerant towards other cultures because of their subjective values, it is by no means a mandatory universal force. Cultures can still subjectively think that their own moral system is better than others (although it's not), and thus not apply tolerance to that culture. This is perfectly in line with relativism; tolerance is not a mandatory virtue of the philosophy. Moving back towards Utilitarianism. .. .. .What is morality? My opponent states that morality can be ultimately reduced to maximizing happiness for conscious creatures. I'm not necessarily in opposition to this, except for the fact that it's pertinent to remember that the entire foundation for his objective moral truths has just been destroyed. My opponent, yet, fails to define what is classified as "happiness" and "well-being. " I addressed this point extensively in my argument titled "Subjectivity. " He is implying that there is one specific definition of the word and that it should, consequently, be maximized. As I've already stated, the concept of utility and happiness is highly subjective throughout different individuals and cultures. Some might value monetary gain to be of greater utility than family. Others might do the exact opposite. Some might even value the infliction of pain onto themselves and others as a great amount of utility. My opponent runs into the problem of defining what "utility" objectively is, since no two individuals on this earth have the exact same definitions of what classifies as utility to themselves. Some people might not even want any happiness in their lives. It would be a violation of their moral autonomy to force them to "be happy" (which would probably have the exact opposite results). Ergo, not only is my opponent committing an Is/Ought fallacy by stating that since humans strive for happiness and well-being, it is, as a result, the moral thing to do, but he is also incapable of objectively defining utility with regards to multiple individuals and different preferences. Measuring Well-BeingMy opponent states (mistakenly) that scientific research can be conducted to measure the well-being of any action onto the individuals and that mathematical analysis can be conducted to see the results of an action (i. e. hijab). This has quite a few flaws:1. There is no objective scientific way to measure well-being. Any way that involves the measurement or analysis of brain waves or dopamine is inherently flawed because it only measures short-term results and is not always a measure of well-being. Pleasure =/= well-being. For example, a person addicted to drugs may gain short-term pleasure from ingesting drugs, but that doesn't mean that his well-being is overall improved- especially in the long term.2. There is no way to assess what is classified as "utility" in context of the results of wearing (for example) a hijab. This might cause women to have lower literacy rates, but that isn't necessarily bad or necessarily good- it all depends on pre-existing viewpoint. Not wearing a hijab might grant female equality to men. Again, the validity of this is subjectively based on culture. My opponent's argument suffers from the fact that he assumes an objective set of standards to be true for utility (compassion, safety, etc. .. ). This is completely unsubstantiated. For the third time, he is committing an Is/Ought fallacy.3. Ever action that you take has thousands of future repercussions. There is absolutely no way to know the aggregate utility (even if you could measure it) of your initial action. Any action has millions of repercussions into the future, and it is impossible to know all of these when committing your first action. This is perhaps the strongest point against utilitarianism. ConclusionMoral Relativism- This point is blatantly false because not only does moral relativism state that there are (subjective) moral truths, but my opponent is committing the Is/Ought fallacy by attempting to bridge the gap between descriptive and normative claims. What is morality? - My opponent's argument fails because he does not, nor cannot, provide an objective definition of happiness or well-being that is universal for all individuals in the world. Measuring Well-Being- My opponent mistakenly states that it is possible to measure well-being. Not only is it impossible to measure the aggregate utility of the millions of actions that are resulted from the first action, but my opponent is again trying to impose his own preferences about what is classified as "well-being" onto others, committing the Is/Ought fallacy. The resolution is affirmed.