Utilitarianism is an unsound ethical system

FRAMEWORK: 1) Stable advocacy For purposes of fairness and quality discourse, Pro should advocate a consistent and stable position. This mean’s Pro should not be allowed to change his advocacy mid-debate. Pro has already made arguments that Util yields immoral conclusions, i.e. that some moral criteria exists with which utilitarianism is incompatible. It would be a shift of advocacy for Pro to make the argument that morality does not exist in later rounds- don’t allow Pro to engage in contradictory positions. 2) Competing Ethical Systems Many of Pro’s arguments are of the following format: Util says X X is morally wrong Therefore Util is unsound. This argument structure fails if Pro offers no justification for the second claim that “X is morally wrong.” Pro’s argument requires a competing ethical system to justify why “X” is wrong. A competing ethical system allows us to compare whether utilitarianism reliably yields moral conclusions. Without a competing ethical system, Pro’s arguments amount to arbitrarily asserting “I think X is wrong, so utilitarianism is wrong.” Pro’s 2,4,5 and 6 all rely on this structure- these arguments fail if Pro can’t successfully provide a moral argument that “X” is wrong. Without a competing ethical system, Pro has already lost this debate. C1) a) This argument is patently incorrect- it is possible to compare interpersonal utility. The comparison of torturing person A or giving person B a delicious meal is simple. b) Pro’s argument is actually that epistemic uncertainty can make utility comparisons difficult or in practice impossible. This problem applies to any ethical system- there will always be uncertainty about relevant ethical factors. Uncertainty doesn’t invalidate the system- I may not know all the relevant physical factors involved in space flight but laws of physics still apply to space flight. Just because I can’t be certain which outcome will maximize utility doesn’t mean that there isn’t a utility maximizing option or that this option is morally superior. c) The Happiness principle is an ethical criterion, not a decision making process. Utilitarianism lays out the criteria for which actions are good and bad, but does not prescribe the best way to approach ethical decisions. Rather than perform complex utility calculations for every decision, we adopt practical rules of thumb that guide our decisions. The uncertainty and variability inherent in the infinite ethical decisions individuals make means that broad decision-making rules are often the best way to maximize utility. In general thievery is contrary to the Happiness Principle, so we adopt the broad rule that theft is wrong. Even if a narrow range of theft cases results in positive utility, the aggregate case justifies treating theft as universally wrong. d) Pro relies on the existence of moral “rights” but offers no justification for this assertion. C2) a) Pro offers no justification for why motivation must be morally relevant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions- I can have the best intentions but if these will not change the moral character of my action if I irresponsibly generate harm. Good actions can be the result of all sorts of motivation- saving a child from drowning is a good act even if I only did it to impress my hot date. Saving a child is saving a child no matter what. b) Cross-apply my C1c. Pro is again confusing issues related to moral culpability and decision making parameters with the appropriate criterion for a good action. We judge intentional murder as worse because there are anti-utility decision making procedures in play. c) Motivation IS morally relevant insofar as there are consequentialist impacts. It is better to give to charity for charitable reasons than for purposes of self-aggrandizement because the motivation is tied to the efficacy and reliability of the charitable contribution. The intention of a car driver to kill a cyclist has a bearing on the consequences of the action- people intending to do harm are more likely to bring about harm. Pro needs to show that motivation is morally relevant for reasons independent of utilitarianism. C3) a) Cross apply my C1b and C1c. Epistemic uncertainty is inherent in human action. b) This argument is patently wrong- if you have ever decided against doing something because it would hurt someone else you have successfully implemented a utilitarian calculation in practice. C4) a) Is Pro really arguing that the temporary pleasure of a few rapists outweighs the immense suffering of the rape victim and the rape victim’s family and friends? Is his position actually that we simply have no way of knowing that a rape victim’s suffering is actually that bad? The harm caused by rape is well known and well documented. Rape victims are 3 times more likely to have major depressive episodes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, and 6 times more likely to develop PTSD. [1] It is absurd for Pro to suggest not only that the rapist’s pleasure outweighs this suffering. [1] http://www.ou.edu... b) Pro’s argument only works if the net pleasure of the gang rape outweighs any alternate activity the rapists could have engaged in. For example- if the net utility of a gang rape (even if positive) is less than the net utility of, say, the gang sharing a delicious meal, then the gang rape fails to maximize utility. This further demonstrates the fact that the Happiness Principle is not a decision making process- we avoid gang rape because the massive negative utility of the victim means it is almost certain to contradict the happiness principle. There is always an activity other than gang rape that will yield more optimal utility. c) This example is only the least bit convincing when considered as a hypothetical test case. A real world application of this principle clearly leads to massive negative utility. Imagine that we decide gang rape is ok- the rate of gang rape will increase as well as societal tension and anxiety will increase as fathers worry about their children away at college and women fear the streets. The explosion of gang rape cases in India has resulted in exactly this. The issue has prompted often violent protests and has become such a hot political issue that even the Prime Minister spoke out to condemn the rise and gang rape and note that such actions were a mark of shame on the community. [2] [2] http://www.bbc.com... d) The reason we view gang rape as clearly wrong is because it clearly generates massive amounts of harm; Pro offers no competing moral justification for why gang rape is wrong. C5) a) Pro concedes that this hypothetical case is “implausible.” We don’t need to consider a utility monster because it couldn’t exist- odd moral features of fictional realities aren’t an issue for ethical systems. b) The utility monster assumes happiness exists on an infinite scale. We have no reason to believe this to be true. It seems more likely that there exists some ceiling on possible happiness, whether due to biological limits of brain chemistry or for some metaphysical feature of “perfect happiness.” This argument is built on an assumption which is at best dubious and most likely incorrect. d) Maybe if such a creature existed it WOULD best to give all resources to the monster. The state of bliss required to outweigh the suffering of billions of people and sentient animals is unimaginable- such a creature would be a happiness god. Maybe it would be right to sacrifice ourselves to a happiness god. This case falls well outside the realm of moral intuition and Pro gives no moral argument for why a utility monster is undesirable. C6) a) Pro is absolutely correct that utilitarianism demands that the vast resource inequality between first and third world be remedied. I don’t know of any ethical system that doesn’t find rampant poverty to be an ethical problem. Is Pro’s argument that we shouldn’t try to ameliorate suffering in third world countries? b) Pro asserts without justification that “no one has a right to take our rightfully acquired property.” This nothing more than Pro’s asserted opinion without argumentative justification. c) Exactly what action utilitarianism requires in the face of third world poverty is a topic worthy of a separate debate. However, the scenario Pro seems to be driving at, a coercive purge of all excess resources, certainly falls outside what utilitarians advocate. The prominent utilitarian Peter Singer argues that people should give 1% of annual income to charity- but maybe that is precisely the terrible conclusion Pro fears. C7) Rights are Derivative of the Happiness Principle a) Rights derive from considerations of utility, especially in the context of society and systemic utility calculations. Property rights and the right to free speech are justified by the consequential outcomes of upholding these rights. As an example, we can point to the special public good created by a right to free speech. This right guarantees that new ideas and criticisms will be heard, provides a mechanism for checking political corruption, and contributes to well-informed public governance. Utilitarianism provides sufficient justification for rights. b) Pro must provide some non-utility justification for property rights and the other rights he has advocated in this debate. He needs to account for how and why humans have these rights, how we know what these rights are, and why this account is superior to the utilitarian account.