Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

2C0. PrerequisiteThe definition of value (2P1) is out of context and contradictory to utilitarianism.From pro's source: “In ethics, value denotes something's degree of importance, with the aim of determining what action or life is best to do or live (Deontology), or at least attempt to describe the value of different actions (Axiology).”Also, the definition of utility is given (2CDefinitions), but the formal definition of utilitarianism is not. “Utilitarianism: doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number” – Merriam Webster FULL DEFINITION [12].To 2P1. On the contrary, Utilitarianism ensures moral uncertainty, unless of course consequences are 100% certain. Also, 2P1 says that we should be utilitarians and value maximizing the number of living sentient entities. This implies the value of sentience and the value of life. Utilitarians value sentience I would somewhat agree because pleasure and pain is important to utilitarians. However, life itself has no intrinsic value to any (formal sense) of the (not adjusted) academic utilitarian theory. The second value of pro’s concoction implies value in reason. The problem here is not in the fact of utilitarian lack of value in reason, but in the conflict of reason and sentience. Moral uncertainty in which is valued more? Finally, in 2P1, the given reason for given values: to find real values. To 2P2. See 2C2A/B. To 2P3. Rule Utilitarianism: “An action is morally right if and only if it does not violate the set of rules of behavior whose general acceptance in the community would have the best consequences--that is, at least as good as any rival set of rules or no rules at all” [6]. This is great because it’s a sort of ‘short cut’ to the blown out calculus. However, Rule Utilitarianism, like any other utilitarianism, is in favor of the best consequences. The addition is the extension to the best for the community. Therefor, if I get home from cheating on my spouse, and am asked where I have been, Rule Utilitarianism collapses into Act Utilitarianism. Even though truthfulness is generally accepted as a moral rule, this incident could justify lying as the greater good for the community. If genocide is generally accepted to promote better consequences, then genocide is morally right. 2C1. Consequentialism, regardless of type, is fundamentally mistaken. Utilitarianism is consequentialism and bases morality in consequences. For a utilitarian, there is no action, whatsoever, wrong in itself. Whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, NOT on the act itself. The end can always justify the means. This is a huge issue with utilitarianism. Imagine the most grotesque and inhumane possible action; it is likely there is a scenario in which it is justified by utilitarianism. However, regardless of justifiability, utilitarianism requires it be calculated before it is wrong. 2C1A. Felicific CalculusUtilitarianism utilizes the Felicific Calculus when promoting the greater good. The pain-pleasure of one moral decision is weighed against that of another [2]. June 21, 2014: a 20-year-old woman was raped and hanged from a tree in Pakistan – by three men [3]. Before a utilitarian can pass a moral judgment in this case, the theory requires that they take into account the pleasures experienced by the three men. 2C1B. Lack of Moral ObligationImagine: You see a train hurdling down a track heading towards five people – they are tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch that will divert the train onto another track away from the five. However, this comes at a cost… there is one person tied to the other track. Now, most people would not hesitate to flip the switch in light of the five they are saving. Very rarely is the one’s life valued over the five. This is why utilitarianism is often an easily accepted theory. Until…Imagine the same situation. This time, the only way to save the five is by pushing someone in front of the train. While this would be the utilitarian decision, the only people that actually did this (in the simulated experiment) were sociopaths [4]. Sociopaths have no sense of moral obligation [5], which could be why they have no trouble pushing the man in front of the train. A utilitarian is required to push the man in front of the track in this case, even if this man is his family member. A utilitarian is required to leave the train un-switched if the five are orphaned babies that nobody cares about, and the one is a member of One Direction. Utilitarianism revokes personal autonomy. 2C1B. Controlling the ConsequencesHow can a person be held morally responsible for that which is out of their control? And, since utilitarian behavior is based on their calculation of consequences, should their action be defined on their calculation, or actual consequence? Really, the morality of the action is just that – the morality of the action itself, regardless of consequence. 2C2. AlternativesWhile pro does the utilitarian shuffle in justifying (or un-justifying) the examples given, I will provide alternatives that reduce the moral uncertainty. Each of the following sub points addresses the morality of the action itself, regardless of the consequence. The means is the end in these cases. 2C2A. Contractarianism [10]Legitimizes political authority because moral norm for right or wrong action (and how right or wrong) is defined by a contract – mutual agreement of morals. Purpose of government is in holding that contract. Example is human rights. 2C2B. Human RightsType of contractarianism; for a full list of your human rights, as defined by the United Nations, see The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [7]. Human RightHuman rights are rights: “rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states” [8].Human rights are universal: All living persons are born with these rights. One’s human rights are not to de discriminated against. The second strongest just cause for war (after self-defense) is to protect the most fundamental human right: life. i.e. in going to war to prevent or end genocide. Human rights have high priority: some call this inalienable, but this term can be misunderstood. Inalienable does not mean that rights are sacred; this would annihilate the death penalty. Rather, inalienable means that the rights cannot be taken away or given away [9].2C2C. Kantian EthicsKantian philosophy is quite arguably the most beautifully constructed theory I have ever read. Kantian ethical theory ties in to his philosophy. Central to Kantian philosophy is human autonomy, understanding, and rationality. Because humans share rationality and freedom of reason, Kant would say that morality is also known. He gives his theory of morality through categorical imperatives:The first categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Basically, do not do it if it kant be applied to everything. Before I give moral examples, I will provide concrete and tangible examples for comparison:White is light in color.To say, “All white should be dark in color” is logically contradictory. Either there is no white, or, it should not be dark in color.(Continue applying structure)A square is made of straight sides. […] “All squares should have round sides” […] either there is no square, or, it should not have one curved side. Truth is factual. “All truth should be fictional;” either there is no truth, or, truth should not be fictional. Property is given.“All property should be taken;” either there is no property, or, property should not be taken.Life is alive. “All life should be dead;” either there is no life, or, life should not be killed. This first categorical imperative extends to a number of contradictions: suicide (dying should improve life), breaking the law (all rules should be broken), laziness (all talents should be unused).The second categorical imperative: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” Basically, this means not to use people (as a means to an end). This is because using someone takes away his or her rational autonomy, therefor violating the first categorical imperative.2C3. Why the alternatives, and non-consequentialism, could be considered better than utilitarianism.The alternatives given put people in control, and hold them responsible. Are people obligated to do what is right? If so, then morality should be based in actions. Are people obligated to do what will be right? If so, then morality should be based in consequences. But what if the outcome is wrong? The action must be done before the effect can be done. The effect is not done before the action. Man is responsible and obligated to do right action before right consequence. Utilitarianism puts the cart before the horse...[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://philosophy.lander.edu...[3] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...[4] http://youtu.be...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[7] http://www.un.org...[8] http://plato.stanford.edu...[9] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[10] http://plato.stanford.edu...[11] http://www.csus.edu...[12] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;