The Principle of Utility

Sorry for my absence in the last round. Give the opponent conduct... But still judge everything else. How does this debate have seven Facebook likes?I posed counter-arguments in my refutations that not only counter my opponent's claims but also develop my own claims. These claims are the foundation for my arguments, and hence, I have met the Burden of Proof. If you do not believe this, read my refutations. ---1. The opponent misconstrues my argument. The net-happiness of any action, holistically, is either positive and negative; therefore, an action, holistically, can be described as moral or immoral. The Principle of Utilitarianism is broad and does not pertain to case-by-case bases of actions. Hence, my stance is germane to the matter at hand and represents the Principle of Utilitarianism well. Indeed, as the opponent says, the Principle of Utilitarianism does state that "any action that increases happiness is morally good (and vice versa.)" If we go by a case-by-case basis, then we can take a case in which a specific act of giving food to a starving man leads to positive net-happiness; this would be morally good. If we view the action holistically, however, how do we determine the morality of it? You take the collective net-happiness, and that determines whether or not it is moral. Motives are arbitrary. One person can save a dying child in good faith; another person can kill a healthy child in good faith. If a motive that is moral (or good) is one that intends the results of an action to be good, then the entire theory is founded on a completely subjective value. One could argue that "good" is, to an extent, objective and form a list of "rules," but such a list will have exceptions and will naturally be too broad. Eventually any list of such a nature would come down to "happiness," the foundation of utilitarianism. 2. In regards to the act of killing a homeless man, the opponent states, "...no-one [sic] would look favorably on the killer, even if they knew his actions lead to greater consequences." This is, of course, illogical for two reasons. The first is that "killing a homeless man" is a broad statement; some may, in fact, be in favor of killing a homeless necropedophile, for instance. In fact, many people are in favor of the death penalty. Why is killing considered moral in some contexts and not in others? Each context has a different place on the utilitarian spectrum, and therefore, the morality of the act varies.The second is that if it is later determined that, for example, the homeless man had created a terroristic plot to destroy California, then the negative net-happiness that was avoided makes it more feasible that the initial act, though directly leading to assumptions of immorality, was in fact, moral, since a greater negative was avoided, most likely.The opponent keeps emphasizes actions on a case-by-case basis. We are judging the means of determing the moral value of actions, holistically. Killing the homeless man is, without any contextual details, immoral, all in all. If a random homeless man were killed, there is a greater chance that the net-happiness would be lower than it would have been if he were not. We can determine, hence, through a probabilistic means, that killing a homeless man (without further context) is immoral, all in all. The opponent is simply misrepresenting the argument that is being posed. Indeed, if the ice cream had been poisoned, then it would have been a moral act. Let us remember that we are dealing with the action of "asking a friend to walk with you on the rocks after he has bought ice cream." This is all of the context that we are provided with. Within this context, the ice cream, in a majority of cases, would not be poisoned. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the friend would fall under the given circumstances (if we took this action holistically, all other contextual circumstances aside.) Therefore, all in all, the action does not lead to lower net-happiness than the absence of the action. 3. The action: "Slapping someone in the face after they slapped you."The hypothetical:Person A slaps Person B in the face. Resulting net-happiness: A: +1, B: -1Person B slaps Person A in the face back. Resulting net-happiness: A: -1 B: +1Essentially, in this hypothetical, the action is a means of achieving the positive end of the net-happiness. Net-happiness, within a given time, always consists of positive and negative values that accumulate into a final value. At an individual level, a person desires to keep net-happiness the same or even greater, while acquiring the positive end of it. Moreover, there is a disparity between perceived resulting net-happiness and actual resulting net-happiness. Someone who punches someone believes that the pain of the person is justified by the positive net-happiness that is derived from it (e.g., satisfaction derived from revenge) on their end. 4. Not all utilitarianism is founded on absolutism; my opponent fails to acknowledge this in this arguments. We have to place an action on a spectrum, because even the greatest proponent of utilitaranism would acknowledge that one morally good thing can be superior to another morally good thing, and vice versa. Now, to address the question of "How on earth are we to calculate probabilities if there is an infinite number of potential outcomes anyway?" We have to restrain the duration of time based on which an action is judged. I ask the opponent, "How can we determine the exact odds of getting heads in a hypothetical coin flip if there is an infinite number of times one can flip a coin?" Within a given period of time, though extremes would occur on both sides of the moral spectrum (in the coin analogy, this would mean that we would get the same side a large number of times, though this would be better represented in a different analogy with more possibilities), the action slowly approaches a specific net-happiness value. 5. Actually, my opponent is utterly wrong when referring to the Stoic philosophy. Stoicism was partly founded on a philosophy of achieving happiness. Seneca and Epictetus emphasized the doctrines that "the sage is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness." [1] In other words, Stoics sought happiness through apathy, an absence of disturbance. [2] And an "absence of pain," derived from apathy (along with the satisfaction that is derived from it) surely fits the given definition. If one seeks isolation, it DOES mean that the person perceives this isolation to be a means of achieving a greater net-happiness than through other means. This is indisputable. Does an action necessarily lead to one's greater happiness? No. But perceived resulting greater happiness is what is used to make day-to-day decisions. 6. I. Harming your own body usually leads to lower net-happiness than the absence of performing such an act, and therefore, it is immoral. And again, perceived resulting net-happiness differs from actual resulting net-happiness. If I were to cut myself with the expectation that it would lead to greater net-happiness than if I didn't, that does not mean that such will be the case. Furthermore, the opponent uses words like "permissable" and "obligation." Utilitarian morality is just a natural preference for the greatest net-happiness; there is no obligation that must be met.II. In a given case in which you must hurt or kill yourself to spare other people, the perceived net-happiness result is what determines whether or not you do it... And the actual net-happiness result is derived from the consequences of such an action. Due to the broadness of the action and the lack of context, I am not sure, offhand, whether such an action is moral or immoral, holistically, but I am assuming that it is close to neutral, depending on the proportion of loss of life and sparing of life. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.bilkent.edu.tr...