Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

Dear Sir, lets boldly go where no debate has gone before. . . . Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory. I say no sir. While growing up I watched reruns of Star Trek as a child, and though I did not know the name utilitarianism, I learnt it is wrong. So I will refute your elegantly wordy and obviously mistaken ascertain by examples obvious to anyone with a sense of furture history. . . I will defeat you not with phasers or photons, but the simple truth. Everything you need to learn about utilitarianimisimsmsms, other than how to spell it, you can learn by referencing Star Trek and it"s horribly wrong. The most obvious mistake in Ult is the Bromance of Spock and Kirk, be Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, or Into Darkness. Spock was the ultimate Utilitarianism, with his statement "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few or one." However that is not true all the time and even if you find an act that fits that description, such as Spook sacrificing himself to save the ship, it has nothing to say that act is based on utilitiariamsemthsn. Because as the sequel points out, "The needs of the few and sometimes the one outweigh the needs of the many" " Kirk. 2p1, utilitarianism best handles moral uncertainty. Ult handles moral by not dealing with it or relegating it to a artificial point system. You could have an entire society based on the slavery of another or group and still follow the law of Ult. I will reference "Spock's Brain" the first episode of the third season, broadcast September 20, 1968. By Ult precepts, Spock who is forced into slave labor for the benefit of an entire species is not only moral, its required and justified. I would disagree, it is not just, it does not value personal rights or individual freedoms, consent is never given. Yet steal Spocks brain completely follows the core tenants of Ult; a majority of individuals happiness is more important then an individuals or smaller group suffering. In "Second Skin" from TNG there is a creature who can feel more intense emotions and ranges then Humans, his enjoyment in torture others give him great pleasure. Again, pleasure derived from torture is not a moral precept, but valid for Ult. however as shown in the show, there is a minim value that when crossed does not justify the overwhelming advancement of another. this concept violates Ult rules. You state - "So how should we act when we do not know what the ultimate goal(s) is/are, if there is/are one/any?" You"re applying a nonsensical assumption to an invalid question. Your might as ask, which episode is the your personal favorite that you haven"t seen yet. The first episode and last in TNG, is that the quest for humanity is not out there, but inside the hearts and mind (metaphorically) of men. That is bolding going forward where no man has gone before, inside the self to discover "who am I". Something that is a not even a question to a Ult as it may cause distress or civil disobedience, and question of values and ult rule itself. "Under Utilitarianism life is the ultimate value because it is a prerequisite for utility," In first contact, the borg, and subsequently the Enterprise go back in time, the enterprise briefly gets a view of the planet, that has billions of additional people on it, all borg. While the number of people, education (borg are far more advance) and life span and shear over whelming numbers has increased, I would argue going back and saving the less desirable future over the borg is the right thing to do. 2P2. Utilitarianism best handles conflict between values. "Wisdom is the beginning of logic" " Spock this is during a debate in undiscovered country, where there is an argument between him and an fellow Vulcan. She states they ether attack or be attacked. However as he points out there are other options. Your arguing a if than or statement when multiple answer but only showing two, and then shift the burden of proof to a negative sum. Additionally, to logical people can arrive at vastly different answer as to validity of a specific act. Additionally there is a question of minimum value and maximum values as shown in episode called "half a life" Seasons 4, episode 22 of TNG. The premise is that old people and the pain at the end of life is unwanted and an inconvenience to watch and financial burden, causing undue hardship. Which would fit the Utilitarian ideal, however if everyone arrived at different conclusions and were free to act on own interpretation you would have no rule at all.. In the TNG episode of called "Symbiosis", the episode is Ult arguments. In it Piccard is placed in the position of choosing "do I fix a ship so drug dealers can continue there easy life style at the expense of others who are feed drugs and kept happy, or Do I stop the drug trade an cause massive harm and pain to individuals for a short term, ruin an entire economy for a generation for the betterment of following generations." As he is not Omnipotent the argument for action can be put either way. You may gain happiness from TNG, while I prefer Original series. We can both watch the shows, and perceive different inherit value, and we can both agree DS9 sucks. However we may be the minority, some peole do like DS9. How does you Utilitariansims best hand this conflict between values. Which is us acting for Utilitariiams? 2P3. Rule Utilitarianism Best Handles Public Policy. There is also the fact that utilitarianism is impossible to fulfill, lacking knowledge, one would have to base choice on logic. Being logical does not correlate to omniscience. To shape decision, either by committee or individual would be required, in which case you have democracy, or dictatorship or republic. Either way, your rule of ULT then falls to arguing perspectives; you have government not based on Ult because omniscient is impossible and differing opinions are a bases for debate. No matter how you frame it, the initial assumption of Ult is invalid which is why you have these silly situation where your assumptions results are not something that is at all related to the betterment of the human condition. Problems with Utilitarianism. 1) it is not a system is it a pronouncement. It has one rule, and everything is judge by it. Similar to religion, it relies on its own justification to justify itself,. Nor could there be a debate about it, because self critics would imply a flaw in the original assumption. 2) Ult does not account for variety of pleasure, intensity or comparative between two pleasures or circumstance by which it derived a total sum on a Spread sheet. 3) It is more centered on amount of pleasure vs pain, but more pleasure can justify more pain. Raping a women for the intention of getting her pregnant and removing the child from her care to a it a privileged life is better in the eyes of a Ult view if the a child is born, then not, rather then the actual rape. 3) Ult does not account for quality of life, only amount of life of intelligent creatures. The last 20 whales (whose species is doomed to extinction) killed to feed an elitist group who gain additional pleasure in the last blue whale because it amasses them pleasure is valid if no one found out about it or caused distress to the whole. 4) its definition of utility if vague and can be twisted to various misleading moral problems. 5) Happiness is not an end, nor sustainable nor does it necessarily lead to a qualitative life. Secular humanist is better then Ult. 1.Secular humanisms prices human inquire and evidence based debate and values. So while we admit that we may not be best system possible, at least the possibility of finding it is possible, where ult is a dead end perspective. 2.Secular humanisms place trust in provable and demonstrable evidence and logic. It rejects ideas shows to be false or un-defendable. As such it is a system (not a pronouncement) and it grows and has a chance of self-correcting if found wrong. 3.Secular Humanists have a more realistic view of our strengths and limitations and because we are grounded in science and the results of experience and observation, we are much better equipped to make effective, positive changes that are more likely have a chance of success and greater achievability. 4.We value peer-reviewed research, to make accurate claims about how the universe actually functions rather then what it ough to be, which is silly, or should be which is wishful thinking or made up which is religion. 5.Secular Humanism allows for great flexibility and a wider, deeper understanding and appreciation of the world. 6.Secular humanism evolves over time as additional information is added to increase and grow with our understanding of the human condition. 7.Secular Humanism prefer Star Trek over star wars, because its far more engaging and the breath of philosphy and idea`s lead to a better understand and how ultimately ULT is flawed. 8.I can spell Secular Humanism without a spell check, your ultiamafarism is a pain to spell. Round two, Once more unto the breach. . .