Utilitarianism Is Good

Utilitarianism Is Good I'm a utilitarian. What is goodness aside from making people happy? Why do we avoid murder and rape? Because they cause unhappiness. If you see a way to make someone else happy at little cost in happiness to yourself, it would be a good thing if you helped out. If you make someone unhappy without making someone else happy, you did a bad thing. "The most happiness for the greatest number," is a slogan associated with utilitarianism. I'm not dogmatic, or even educated, about whether that is a good way to express utilitarianism's bottom line. It's just that I don't see any way to measure good/bad aside from the resulting happiness/unhappiness. It seems to me that every other moral system must either derive from utilitarianism or be dismissible as irrelevant. Take Kant's morality as an example. His moral rule is that you can't lie unless you can recommend that everyone lie all the time. How does he justify this rule? He observes that if everyone lied all the time, more people would be unhappy. His system is based on utilitarianism. Else, what would be the point? Imagine an Authoritarian system, in which obeying the state is the only virtue. If it didn't make people happy, what would be the point? If it made people unhappy, it would be bad. Now take Christianity, a dual system: The rule is that you should obey god, but it is also held that doing so will increase happiness. So, if gods existed, and if it were true that obeying them increased happiness, Christianity could be a decent moral system. Of course, I'm evaluating other moralities according to utilitarianism. The Authoritarian might say, "Does utilitarianism increase obedience to the state? If not, what is the point?" When we compare moralities like this, we have to evaluate their goals. Obedience to the state vs. people being happy, which is better? That's an esthetic judgment, an emotional appeal. If you don't see the appeal of human happiness, you are a sociopath. To which, you will respond, "You say that like it's a bad thing?" Yes, this utilitarian answers, it is a bad thing. So that's the bottom line. If you want people to be happy, you see the appeal of utilitarianism. If people get more utilitarian in their behavior, then more people will be happy. (Yes, I say that like it's a good thing.) Criticisms of Utilitarianism: These tend to be self-defeating by being themselves based on utilitarianism. For instance, anti-utilitarians say that utilitarians should be willing to harvest the organs of one innocent victim in order to save several lives. That sounds terrible. It does. But what exactly is wrong with it? It's wrong because it would make us unhappy to be subject to having our organs harvested, to not know whether our relatives will make it to dinner tonight if the organ harvesters are out. Nobody wants to live that way. It's un-utilitarian. You could phrase the objection differently. You could say that the organ harvesters are wrong because they violate the rights of their victim. But why do we have rights? Because we are happier with rights. Otherwise, what would be the point? Types of Utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism bases behavior on specific circumstances. You could tell a lie if you believed that that specific lie would cause more happiness than unhappiness. Rule utilitarianism doesn't trust those one-off evaluations. As a rule utilitarian, I would argue that people tempted to lie will fool themselves too often. They will rationalize that the lie will cause more happiness than unhappiness, even when that's not the case. So rule utilitarians make general rules. For instance, I'd say that lying tends to cause unhappiness, so it should be avoided, absent extraordinary circumstances, even in those cases in which you think it will work out for the best. Desire utilitarianism may be the best version. According to this theory, you ought to desire things that tend to make people happy. So, you shouldn't want to lie. But you should want to save lives, so, in extraordinary circumstances like when lying can save lives, lying may be okay. Conclusion: That's my unsophisticated position. I don't know of any moral system that is better, that has more appeal, than utilitarianism. To the extent that other systems make people unhappy, they are bad. To the extent that they make people happy, they may be okay. The ultimate test of a moral system is whether it makes people happy. Otherwise, what would be the point? Morality is how you ought to behave. If you know the difference between right and wrong, you ought to do right. But there is no way that something can be good unless it is good for something. That is, what can be good about an act that makes nobody happy? The ultimate basis of utilitarianism, increasing happiness, is a good appealing goal. To the extent that alternative moral systems don't share in this goal, there is no reason for us to go along with them. There is not ought to counter-utilitarian systems. Rules of this Debate: I'm Pro. I argue that utilitarianism is good. I really believe this. Blackvoid is Con. He argues that utilitarianism is bad. He's fielding some interesting arguments. Two rounds. 72 hour turns. One week of voting. NO SCORE FOR SOURCES. I emphasize this because it got ignored wholesale in my last debate. Blackvoid and I have agreed that we can cite sources if we want to, but we are not to be voted points for sources. This debate is a discussion, a reasoning-together, a testing of our logic, not a contest of authorities. I repeat, therefore: DON'T VOTE US SCORE FOR SOURCES.