Utilitarianism can properly uphold the value of justice

If this isn't already convincing enough, I will continue with my rebuttal and summary. RebuttalDefinitions:It's rather ironic how Pro in his LAST round states that he is discussing maximization of utility. The definition he provided was maximization of "goodness", not utility. Those are two separate types of utilitarianism and the fact that he keeps contorting what he's advocating for not only makes him a moving target but should lose him the conduct point for changing the debate in the last round. I will continue on as if he is discussing goodness since that is what this debate was set to be about from the start. He not once mentions what this "goodness" is throughout the debate because he knows that it is happiness universally. At the point at which he has not once justified how happiness is good, he can not win the debate already. You can almost vote Con already right here since he isn't endorsing Util. Observation: Again Pro mistakenly assumes that I have to endorse the CI. Readers, disregard this. Just remember he is endorsing a system and HE is upholding justice and I am proving we he can't, not why I can. Pro agrees that util can not uphold justice in of itself and states that he wins the debate if he proves that justice needs Util. This is simply wrong because the resolution states that Util in of itself can uphold justice. Thus already he has technically conceded and you can vote for Con. Just because justice requires Util in a few circumstances does not mean Util can uphold justice. It should be noted that Pro does not respond to my defense of my C1, so this can be extended for its validity across the flow. He never justifies the intrinsic goodness of "happiness". Can Util achieve Equality? I did admit that Util would solve the objection, but I said that the CI would too. If both can solve there is no conflict either way. It doesn't make sense that he is stating that it is acceptable to sacrifice the minority for the majority but then to assert that the VOI won't allow us to since we have to consider their position? Pro is not clear as to who will be sacrificed, if he says the minority will be treated he is endorsing deontology, not Util. It should be noted that the VOI and Deontology go hand in hand as well. Later says that it is inevitable to disregard a certain number of people. At this point he concedes to achieving justice. He asserts that there is no alternative other than killing, per se. However on the deontological aspect there can perhaps be a compromise made, thus achieving more than he is by upholding rights. At the point at which I am upholding rights and he is stating that sometimes it is impossible, he is not upholding justice and I am. Pro basically concedes when he says util can not achieve equality. FallaciesPro misses the point on the presumptuous fallacy. I wasn't saying they would want murder for themselves but I was stating when you assume that the people will make the right decision, you are being presumptuous. Imagine if our justice system ran off of assuming that the majority will make the right decision. This does allow genocide as I have explained time after time. Same goes with the Democratic Fallacy. He is asserting that the way X people want the world to be, is moral under the VOI. So if X wants the world to end in 2012, this is moral. There is nothing moral about this. ConsequentialismAs far as the twin objection goes, the CI would state that we can not kill the baby, not deontology. Deontology is not as rigid as my opponent assumes. It may not be the moral action, but it is *permissible*. Deontology wouldn't govern the legality of this either. My opponent is trying to force me to advocate for the CI in all circumstances however that is not what I am doing. I am proving that Util does not uphold justice, not the CI does. Conflicting rights would be determined by universal morality, not Util. Pro states "all we *should* care about, universally, is whether the *outcome* is moral". Imagine if our justice system revolved around the *outcomes*. Attempted murder would be just, robbery would be just, etc if it fails. This is not correct. Like I stated earlier, a father who fails to save his child and accidentally lets him die would be punished. Pro never really explains how everything is determined by the outcome. My system proposes that the outcome AND the intention matter, not just the outcome. However as deontology proposes the action is deemed *moral* by the intention, not the outcome. This doesn't mean we disregard the outcomes. Pro is disregarding the intention when he states all we should care about is the outcomes. Miracles and other highly improbable circumstances would occur since the *outcome* would not be good generally. The same way my opponent turns intentions being bad can be turned with outcomes. Like I said I could intend to do the most immoral action I want, but if it results as moral that's fine. I am considering intentions AND outcomes, he states only outcomes matter. Again this is so fraudulent that all cases of second-degree murder would result in punishment even though it was accidental since "all that matters are the outcomes". This would be a terrible way to uphold justice. Suppose the dad has to save his son from getting hit by a car. He *has* to run in front of the car and grab his son. Then as he is stating there is a chance of Daddy dying so he shouldn't do it? ? I suppose our justice system should determine whether or not people can save their very own children. Deontology would permit this since his intention is good and he is protecting his own son out of love, regardless of what happens. I looked over the debate and never did I state that insane people running around with *pure* intentions would not be held culpable. I was discussing people with mental disabilities and showing how the outcome is immoral, so a rule consequentialist would punish any mentally disabled person who commits murder. Deontology would not, since the person did not have an immoral intention. When we come to the conclusion that people of mental enfeeblement would be punished, we know this is not justice. Thus Pro has still not proven how outcomes always justify morality. He constantly contorts it to make it seem like it does, but it is apparent it does not. Property Flaw I did not state that they have to reduce their CO2 levels to zero all I stated was that it is immoral for them to infringe upon rights of people. To a minuscule extent where it won't matters, yes they can do it. However when one destroys the autonomy of an individual because it has greater *net* utility, this is not justice. We must factor in the rights of the individuals, which util does not. Util would allow the company to dump as much as they want as long as it benefits the economy more. This system is way too extreme. Util is qualitative? Pro again misses the point. He states that we look at "how much good" is done. That is quantitative, not qualitative. Qualitative would look at what type and what kind of goodness is done, not how much. Again he never refutes that this would set a precedent to so much violation of rights because it has more "utils"Summary Pro drops a contention and disregards "happiness" throughout the debate. Time after time he contorts the resolution to his need. Ladies and gents, he has not affirmed the resolution. He has only proved that Util works "sometimes" and for "some people" but justice is meant to give everyone their due at all times. A hybrid system works much better than Util. Pro has not justified happiness and can not by principle win the debate. He also fails to prove how outcomes determine the morality of an action. Thus the readers should prefer the pragmatist perspective and should vote for the side that actually upholds the rights of individuals rather than going off of more *utils*. A justice system based on util would not be just at all.