Utilitarianism can properly uphold the value of justice

I would like to first thank bluesteel for posting his intriguing case. I will first present a case of my own and then move on to the rebuttal. Definitions: Utilitarianism-The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. [1] While I agree with my opponent's definition it seemingly strays away from what the "goodness" utilitarianism advocates for, happiness. Justice- giving each their due (Aristotle). While I agree with my opponent's definition again, it doesn't really establish equality which is what justice attempts to achieve. CaseObservation: I do not necessarily have to provide an ethical system to achieve justice. All that is required of me is to prove that utilitarianism in of itself can not uphold justice. However, my arguments will essentially be derived from a deontological and non-consequentialist perspective. C1: Utilitarianism derives from intrinsic happiness and does not justify the morality of the action. Utilitarianism focuses on quantitative value rather than qualitative value. This is not what justice resolves around. Due to the fact that utilitarianism derives from sheer happiness and the majority, actions can not be justified. As deontology proposes, happiness does not always justify an action. Consider the situation of genocide that operates under utilitarianism: Genocides are almost always a result of the majority acting against the minority: European-Americans against Native Americans during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the Fascists and Nazis against the Jews in WWII, the Hutus against the Tutsis in Rwanda, and the Serbians against the ethnic Albanians in Serbia. Just because the corrupt and violent majority favored the elimination of an entire group of people, it does not make it moral – as utilitarianism would suggest. [2] Now while this action is somewhat extreme it does disprove the reliability of utilitarianism. To assert that this happens seldomly would be to disregard the fundamental purpose of justice, equality. Utilitarianism also fails to justify the morality of the majority that it is discussing. Consider this (thanks Blackvoid! ): To save the lives of five serial killers (assume the DP is not in play) one innocent person must be killed. Utilitarianism justifies this because it is giving the majority their good and their happiness rather than the innocent and moral being. Deontology on the other hand would prevent this from happening because it is not moral to save the immoral by killing the moral. So essentially just because it appeals to the majority and it grants happiness to the majority does not mean that it is a just or moral action as I clarified. Deontology which assures the morality of the action allows us to ensure that the moral individual will be saved and the action will be moral. C2: Utilitarianism fundamentally disregards equality. By principle and by definition, utilitarianism acts upon the majority. However justice on the other hand attempts to give EVERYONE what they deserve as both our definitions lead to. When the theory fundamentally disregards everyone and goes off of 51% per se, it does not achieve justice by principle and can't even achieve justice circumstantially. When the affirmative makes the statement that utilitarianism can indeed properly uphold the value of justice he is asserting that utilitarianism can in of itself uphold justice. At the point at which it is fundamentally contradictory with justice, justice can not be upheld. As my opponent clarifies in his case not everyone can get what they deserve. When one asserts that everyone can not get what they deserve it is almost impossible to achieve justice for he is setting a precedent to not achieve justice. Now of course maybe one or two people will be left out (one has to weigh it off of morality), but when he asserts that he can not give it to everybody all of a sudden 51% apparently becomes a goal since it is a majority. Thus by principle and definition it is virtually impossible to achieve justice. C3: Critique of Consequentialism The theory of consequentialism which my opponent advocates for is flawed as well. To assert that only the outcome and consequence of a situation is pertinent would be to open a door for so many immoral actions. Our government can decide to kill 20% of the population because it would make a better world for the 80% in terms of the economy and competition. I could go on and on critiquing consequentialism but it obliviously disregards the morality of the action. Not only does consequentialism fundamentally accept immoral intentions achieving moral outcomes but it advocates against moral intentions achieving immoral outcomes. If a father tries to protect his son from dying and they both end up dying this is not acceptable by consequentialism and utilitarianism because the majority is not accounted for. If our justice system were to work this way, which my opponent is upholding, all immoral actions achieving moral results and vice versa would be acceptable. It is absurd to assert that one of mental enfeeblement who accidentally kills someone should be punished because it had immoral consequences. Thus consequentialism and utilitarianism can not uphold justice. RebuttalNote: This rebuttal will be somewhat brief due to lack of space but I will go more in depth in the next round. The Property FlawLooking over my opponent's argument we see he makes the assertion that it is "impossible" to evaluate competing rights and is impossible to uphold justice. He brings up some hypothetical examples that Utilitarianism does not by any means justify. Let's look it over: "As another example: a company has a right to use its own property as it sees fit. However, if it dumps chemicals in the river on its property, those chemicals travel to other people's properties downriver and damage those people's properties. "Utilitarianism would lead us to the wrong decision in this circumstance. By my opponent's theory, if the company is larger or has a larger impact on the world than the people who own the property it would be justifiable for them to infringe upon the property of the owners. So utilitarianism does not by any means justify property rights cause it would open a door for majorities to take away and destroy the property of the minorities (like genocide) accommadating their arbitrary whim. Thus utilitarianism does not distribute conflicting rights well at all. Categorical Imperative First off I do not necessarily have to advocate for the categorical imperative but the claim my opponent is making is prima facie incorrect and flawed. Pro brings up two examples, one with a bomb and one from Joseph Nye discussing a village incident. He asserts that the categorical imperative does not justify this and would let the majority die. I don't know what leads my opponent to this assertion but the problem with utilitarianism is that it does not attempt to compromise. Perhaps there is an alternative, I'm not saying there is but it disregards the alternative simply because the majority impact is acceptable. Also, the example is completely biased. It presupposes that utilitarianism is 99% to 1% but what about 51% to 49 and all the in between? My opponent's case strays away from this and does not justify it. Rule Consequentialism Rule consequentialism does not even value the morality of the action OR the morality of the people who it is saving. Also rule consequentialism asserts that an action intended to destroy the world is moral if it works the opposite way and an action intended to help that hurts is immoral. By this philosophy people of mental enfeeblement, accidental murders, and so forth would be murdered. This is NOT a way to uphold a just society. In conclusion, justice is not a quantitative matter but a qualitative matter. I now turn it over to bluesteel for the rebuttal. See comments for sources.