Utilitarianism is flawed

My opponent is free to argue what morality implies if it corresponds with the definition of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that certain actions are morally good/bad.actions. This entails objective moral obligations, for for every objective moral basis there is a system pertaining to ought and obligation. The problem of 'consequence verses motive'Con completely misconstrues my analogy. In fact, I believe this strawman warrants an extension of this contention. I clearly state that by utilitarianist principles, torturing babies for fun could turn out to be a morally good act. My opponent goes on to show how torturing a baby (well actually he changed it to child) could be morally acceptable if there are hundred lives at stake and we do it for the greater good. Well I have to agree that it could be acceptable at some times but what my opponent has done is completely strawmaned my point. According to my opponents analogy, the torturer did it for the greater good and even according to motive. This does not fit the context of my argument. Let me stress a better analogy for it. A little girl is walking down the street at night. A man comes up behind her, grabs her, drags her to an ally and mercilessly rapes, mutilates, and finally kills the girl mirthlessly while he does it. While this is going on, a neighbor phones the police and they arrive, though to late. But there was also a boy playing with a gun he had found in his fathers closet. When he heard the police coming, he put the gun back and stopped playing around with it. If the police had not come and the boy had continued to play with the gun, he would have accidentally shot if off. It would have hit a gas station causing it to blow up killing all the people inside and around it. If the man had not rapped, mutilated and killed the girl, all the people at the gas station would have died. But since he did so horribly murder the girl, the lives of the people were saved. So I ask con, and I wish a direct answer, was the murder, rapist and most violator of human rights committing a morally good act when he rapped and killed the little girl? It is established and assumed that it's affects lead to a greater net-happiness. According to utilitarianism it most certainly would be a morally good act that the rapist did. And if a man courageously tackled the rapist and even sacrificed his life to save the girl, that would have been an immoral act according to utilitarianism because his actions eventually lead to a decrease of happiness. I again say, there is absolutely no justification relevant in utilitarianism. It's principles posit the most detestable speculations that I wander if any utilitarianists would condone such actions if faced with them in real life. The problem of non-responsibilityCon does not answer the analogy. He simply states that his friend could have been more careful about where he was going but that just further highlights the implausibilities of his position! It does not matter whether his friend should have been more careful. It was still his action that lead him to dropping the ice-cream cone. My opponent only shows that it was an accumulation of different actions but that is irrelevant as they are all linked. Moreover to make it more simple, we could just change the story to that a piece of dirt fell from a tree into your friends ice-cream causing him to not be able to eat it. That way only your actions lead to the negative consequence and no one else's (unless we want to start accusing the man who planted the tree there and that certainly would be a prospect). My opponent also does not address my points that keeping promises by accident should not be considered moral. Causing happiness purely by accident alleviates any responsibility for that action. If you are inarguably not within in the realm of plausible responsibility, it is useless to see you are morally accountable. The problem of the subjectivity of values Monks will/would physically beat themselves to point of extreme pain and suffering and it is unfounded to say they were content being isolated. They did it for sake of righteousness so it's probable that many or most of them did not derive happiness from it as happiness was irrelevant to their goal and most people find pleasure in involvement in social life. My opponents refutations only bring about further problems. Does utilitarianism apply only to this life or is the next life, if there is one, relevant? If Christians seek happiness in heaven are we to help them in their quest? That would be to assume the Christian outlook is right. But then what about Islam? Do we help them in their quest for happiness in the next life? But then there's all these contradicting views so how can we plausibly say they all should be assumed? And if we assume one of them then why doesn't it apply to everyone else? Utilitarianism doesn't work for the next life for there are hundreds or thousands of religions. We can't assume them all right. That would be absurd. My point still stands. Furthermore, I am sure con could conceive of someone who did not seek happiness in this life or the next. There are billions of people. It's not hard to believe that some of them don't want such a value. The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculations Con states," many systems we employ like our Justice and Education systems are rife with imperfections and human error yet despite this we use them anyway because it’s the best we have right now and the benefits of using them outweigh the cost of not." My opponent seems to acknowledge the problems of utilitarianism. My job is only to prove that utilitarianism is flawed. Just something for the viewers to keep in mind. My opponent does not try to refute this only outweigh it. He concedes that it is an error in the system. I however would posit that it is a fixable error. Utilitarianism's subscription to consequentialism is the root of this problem. If motive were acknowledged as more a moral worth than consequence, none of these problems would exist. I thus don't think it hardly a necessary flaw at all, however it is. And the fact that it is not necessary makes it a very significant and big flaw. Self-ownership objection I don't understand how my opponent responds to this. I clearly showed that killing ones-self or cutting off ones arm could easily be required according to utilitarianism. Con just states that losing ownership to ones self contributes to unhappiness. Well this would certainly be the case in certain scenarios, but in plenty of cases, when we consider the net-happiness of the affect, breaking your jaw, giving all your money away, or cutting off your genitals could all contribute to happiness in some circumstances (though it would have to be fairly bizarre for the latter). Self-ownership would be completely discarded if utilitarianism were true contrary to what my opponent states. Communism doesn't work because it's ineffective. But it doesn't say anything about objective morality. We're talking about moral obligations. Losing our rights would in many cases contribute to unhappiness. But it's an obligation irregardless of whether people are prone to implement it incorrectly. Motive My opponent grossly misinterprets motivism. He states that if we went back in time, according to motivism we would be morally inclined to stop the act allowing the human to be killed. This is clearly misrepresentative of motive philosophy. We would know that allowing the hit man to shoot would result in the greater good so we would act according to the greater good by motive. I don't see why a motvist would stop the killer. Yes it would stop one immoral act, but saving an innocent life far outweighs that. The only implausibility here would be to consider that if utilitarianism were right, the hit man would be doing a morally good act be trying to call the target.