Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

"I specified in my opening that when I said "utilitarianism" I referred to maximizing happiness while also reducing suffering. Neither of the examples given minimizes suffering, rather, they increase it hugely." Europeans and Americans thought they were maximizing happiness for the Africans because 1) they thought they were already being overly kind to "animals" and 2) the Africans were already being enslaved by other Africans and being a slave in Europe/America was much better than being a slave in Africa. Also, they were maximizing happiness for themselves because they could leave most of the hard work to the slaves. We know now that the Holocaust increased suffering, but Hitler and the majority of Germans believed they were maximizing happiness by ridding the world of lesser beings. So both these examples show the immorality of utilitarianism. "As I stated, this debate is not about whether utilitarianism is ideal or even good, but only whether it is consistent." The topic is "Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system" but utilitarianism is not a moral system much less a self-consistent moral system. So although the debate is not about whether it is ideal or even good, whether it is moral or not must be involved for the debate to work. Again, the topic says "Utilitarianism is a self-consistent MORAL system." Utilitarianism cannot be a moral system if it is not moral. "To say something "might" happen is meaningless without any kind of backup or examples, hypothetical or real." Example: You are texting and driving and when you look up, you see five kids crossing the street in front of you. It is too late to stop so your only option is to swerve to the side but if you do you will hit one kid reading on the sidewalk. In this case, you only have to choices, hit five kids or one. Although it is neither choice is right, it is most likely that you will hit the kid on the sidewalk because you would be saving more lives. Now let"s change the situation. Instead of five kids crossing the street, there are felons and you are aware of that. Instead of child reading on a sidewalk, there is a well-known philanthropist checking the time so he doesn"t see what is going on. Which would be moral? If you kill the philanthropist you will have saved five lives but the philanthropist is now no longer able to help more people in need. But if you kill the felons, you have no idea whether they have changed their ways or not. You may have destroyed five lives and families. In this case, neither choice is more moral than the other. You don"t know which choice would bring greater happiness to more people and thus proving my point that morality is immeasurable and so are the moral systems. Also, if something is meaningless without backup or examples, then I should win this debate because my opponent has no evidence, sources, or examples. "Again, I stated in the opening that when I say "utilitarianism" I refer to the idea that the most moral course of action is one that both reduces suffering and maximizes happiness to the greatest degree." This is unrelated to my point so this attack is void. Utilitarianism is inconsistent and I will prove that using each of these definitions from the freedictionary.com. Consistent, n. 1 In agreement; compatible 2 Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform 3 Reliable; steady 4 Holding true as a group; not contradictory 1, 2, 4: So my opponent said, "Anyways, two different philosophies that stem for the same idea disagreeing does not make the stem idea inconsistent with itself." But if consistent means in agreement and not contradictory, the different kinds of utilitarianism must agree with each other to be consistent. 3 Reliable; steady: Utilitarianism is not reliable or steady since the Holocaust, slavery, Stalin"s genocides, and many more horrible things were justified using utilitarianism.