Utilitarianism is a sound theory

Thanks Elder, the honor's all mine =)1. a) Gang-rapeMy opponent has explained an instantiated utilitarianism. To briefly recap, utilitarianism posits that we ought to do that which results in the greatest net utility (in this case, happiness) or that which results in the least utility lost, the lesser of two evils. However, this method frequently brings us to situations where the correct utilitarian answer contradicts the intuitive moral answer. Consider the following one-liner:"Studies show that 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang-rape."Besides being (hilariously) low-brow, it brings up a very big flaw with utilitarianism. It justifies gang-rape. The standard reply to this is that allowing gang-rape to happen this one time opens the door for it to become a social norm, which would ultimately result in a net-utility loss for society, however this response is illogical. If I were to give you $10 in exchange for $1, even though you're losing $1, you're still netting $9. No matter how many times we do this exchange, you will still be gaining 9x what you're losing. You'll never reach a point where you have negative dollars. The same is true for gang-rape. No matter how many times gang-rape is carried out, 9 people gain happiness and only 1 loses happiness. Pro could argue that the happiness lost by that 1 person is greater than the happiness gained by the 9 rapists, but ignoring the fact that Pro has no way of quantifying such a thing, measures can be taken to reduce the happiness lost by the rape victim. The victim could be drugged, so that s/he can't feel or is even conscious for the raping. This way, the 9 rapists gain happiness and the rape victim remains at a neutral level throughout the event.Obviously gang-rape is a horrendous act that any civilized society would make illegal, but from a purely utilitarian standpoint, it is justified so long as enough people rape the victim to offset the victim's sadness from being raped. Since utilitarianism fails to protect individuals from gang-rape, it cannot be considered a valid moral theory.b) Organ HarvestingHuman beings can survive perfectly well with only 1 kidney. In fact, you can live perfectly well with only 1 kidney working at 75% capacity [1]. It's also the case that millions of people die every year due to kidney failure [2]. Therefore, If someone were to, say, knock you out and harvest one of your kidneys and donate it, their actions would result in a net-utility gain for society. Even though this person is holding you against your will, cutting you open and stealing a part of you, as a utilitarian you would have no grounds to oppose it, especially considering those who donate a kidney live for just as long as those who don't [3]. Heck, even if this person harvests all of your organs and kills you, so long as your organs manage to save two or more people, your death results in a net-utility and is therefore moral according to utilitarianism. Since utilitarianism fails to protect individual's lives against organ harvesting, it cannot be considered a sound moral theory. 2. a) MotivationUtilitarianism fails to address the issue of motives, it only looks at consequences. If I try to assassinate the president with a sniper-rifle, but miss and end up hitting the guy behind him - who just happened to be another assassin sneaking up on the president so he could introduce the president's brain to his new tomahawk, am I a moral person? I've just saved the president's life. Better yet, I've also removed a murderer from society. Clearly I've stopped what would have been a massive net-loss in the nation's happiness, yet my intention was to murder the president. If we adhere to utilitarianism, we fail to address the issue of motivation and end up labeling immoral people as heroes. The flip-side to this is even worse. Let's say I was trying to hit the assassin, but at the last second the president leaned over and I ended up hitting the president instead of the assassin. Even though my motives were to save the president, I am labelled a monstrously immoral person under utilitarianism, as my actions have resulted in a net-utility loss. Since utilitarianism fails to address motives, it cannot be considered a sound moral theory.b) JusticeSince utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, if we adopt a utilitarian system, we end up weighing crimes by their result and not their intention. In this way, all crimes of identical magnitude are considered equally immoral. This means that first, second, and third degree murder will all warrant the same punishment. A man who meticulously plans out his co-workers murder and carries it out in an attempt to kill off the competition for that new promotion he's after will receive equal jail-time (or lethal injection) as someone who happened to be changing the car-radio at the same time someone ran out onto the road in front of his car. Clearly these crimes are not equivalent, but because the result is the same (-1 human being), the utility loss is the same (all else being equal) and therefore both men are considered equally immoral according to utilitarianism.Since utilitarianism equivocates between various crimes by ignoring motives, it undermines a large and immensely significant part of the justice system, and so it cannot be considered a sound moral theory.ConclusionUtilitarianism justifies actions that human being intuitively find to be immoral such as gang-rape and organ harvesting. Furthermore, it fails to take motives into consideration and so immoral people can end up being labelled as moral and vice-versa under utilitarianism. This failure to take motive into account also results in radical and unfavourable changes to how we weigh crimes in the justice system. As such, utilitarianism fails to be a sound theory of morality.The resolution is negated.Sources1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...2. http://www.worldkidneyday.org...3. http://www.scientificamerican.com...