Utilitarianism is an unsound ethical system

Thanks, Raisor.My case will consist of several independent objections to Utilitarianism's soundness as an ethical system.C1) Interpersonal Comparisons One of the most fundamental problems with utilitarianism is that it is impossible to objectively measure and make interpersonal comparisons of "utility" (i.e. pleasure or suffering). This means that there are many instances in which utilitarian logic is inapplicable, since the morality of an action is determined by the net suffering and the net pleasure caused by it. There is no way to calculate net pleasure/suffering, so that whole thought process meaningless!Take the general example of thievery; from committing the act, the thief experiences happiness from the material goods that can be bought with the stolen money, and the victim experiences suffering from lamenting the loss of their money and the things they could have used it for. In this situation, one cannot objectively say that the suffering experienced by the victim outweighs the happiness felt by the thief; therefore, according to utilitarianism, thievery in general is not necessarily immoral. However, it is obvious that thievery IS immoral in most cases, as it violates a human's basic right to ownership of their own property. This is just one of many examples showing how utilitarianism fails as a result of our inability to make objective interpersonal comparisons of utility. C2) Intent/MotivationUtilitarianism is fundamentally a form of consequentialism, since it determines moral value solely by looking at the net pleasure/suffering that come from the consequences of an action. However, this is a flawed approach to looking at ethics because it completely overlooks the role that a person's intent/motivation plays in the moral value of their actions. Acts with similar consequences are not necessarily of similar morality. Take the example of murder; it is intuitively obvious to us that someone who accidentally runs over a cyclist with his car is not nearly as despicable as someone who plans out the "accidental" murder of his relative to claim an inheritance. Yet according to utilitarianism, both of these acts are equally immoral, since one death and the emotional suffering of the deceased's loved ones is caused in both instances. If justice were served in accordance with utilitarian values, then both the unfortunate driver and the malicious plotter would receive the same punishment. Any doctrine which condones such an injustice cannot possibly be morally sound. It is clear that utilitarianism's consequentialist implications make it a flawed ethical system. C3) ImpracticalityAnother thing to note with utilitarianism is that its application in deciding what to do during actual moral dilemmas relies on the assumption that the decision maker has an extensive knowledge of the consequences of all his options. Obviously, since this is generally not the case, utilitarianism has very limited practical application. This is highly unbecoming of an ethical system, to the point that it can hardly even be labeled as one anymore.C4) Gang RapeFor an "ethical" system, utilitarianism certainly justifies some very unethical actions. One of the most well-known of those actions is gang rape. If a group of people are raping a single victim, then every member of that group is gaining immense lustful pleasure, while the single victim experiences great pain and humiliation. It seems reasonable to assume (based on the numbers) that with so many rapists experiencing pleasure, it would outweigh the suffering experienced by the single victim, thereby morally justifying gang rape from the utilitarian perspective. One might argue, of course, that the suffering felt by the victim is of such magnitude that it outweighs the pleasure experienced all the rapists combined and renders gang rape immoral by utilitarian logic. However, going back to contention one, there is no way to objectively support that claim because pleasure and suffering are not quantifiable!Utilitarianism does, indeed, condone gang rape, or at the very least, it places neutral moral value on it (by the reasoning from contention one). Either way, it is absolutely absurd; gang rape is a clear violation of a human's natural bodily rights and should be immoral by any ethical standard. Utilitarianism cannot be a sound ethical system if it does not even label actions as abhorrent as gang rape to be immoral.C5) Hypothetical Utility MonsterAssuming that there IS a way to objectively measure and compare utility, suppose that a 'utility monster' exists who "receives much more utility from each unit of a resource he consumes than anyone else does. For instance, eating a cookie might bring only one unit of pleasure to an ordinary person but could bring 100 units of pleasure to a utility monster. If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, it follows from utilitarianism that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else, according to the doctrine of utilitarianism." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)This hypothetical, while implausible, shows how absurd it is for someone's pleasure to be the reason for others' suffering; it attacks the underlying premise of utilitarianism as an ethical system, showing it to be unsound.C6) Third World PovertyAt any given time, there are millions of people experiencing much suffering from poverty and its related perils in third world counties; meanwhile, here we are sitting in the developed world enjoying all our basic necessities and plenty of luxuries extending far beyond what we need to survive. An impoverished person from the third world derives far, far more utility from consuming those excess resources (i.e. luxuries) than we do, since it is already much more than we really need. Therefore, according to utilitarianism, we are morally obligated to give away everything we do not need to the less fortunate. Not only is this intuitively absurd (not even the most hardcore utilitarians would agree to it), but this is also violation of our basic human right to the ownership of our property. No one has the right to take our rightfully-acquired property just because someone else can benefit more from owning it. Utilitarianism condones a coercive, unethical redistribution of resources-- yet another display of utilitarianism's unsoundness. ==============In conclusion, I have offered six compelling reasons to reject Utilitarianism. In order to win the debate, Raisor must successfully refute every one of them.As of now, the resolution is affirmed.