Instigator / Pro
2
1510
rating
4
debates
75.0%
won
Topic

A Defense of Utilitarianism

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

Undefeatable
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1674
rating
53
debates
67.92%
won
Description
~ 521 / 5,000

Utilitarianism is a moral system proposed by Jeremy Bentham. To quote him: "The most good for the most number should be the guilding principal of conduct".

I will hold the position that Utilitarianism is correct, and my opponent will hold that Utilitarianism is incorrect. Other moral systems will not be discussed in this debate.

It is adviced that my opponent has at least a basic understanding of Utilitarianism other then what's in the description before accepting the debate.

I look forward to a lively debate!!!

Round 1
Pro
Opening

Firstly, I would like to thank Undefeatable for accepting this debate.

Utilitarianism is the moral system proposed by Jeremy Bentham [1], which states that the most good for the most number should be the guiding principal of conduct. This means Utilitarianists consider what actions will produce the greatest benefits before they make their actions.

Utilitarianism also accounts for the long-term effects of any decision. If a decision creates short-term good, but erodes good in the long-term, it would not fit into Utilitarianism morality.

Also, there are higher and lower goods. For example sexual good is lower than emotional good. It is true that we get pleasure from sex, however, emotional good is higher since we feel a greater sense of well-being when emotionally satisfied then sexually satisfied. Higher goods always override lower goods.

Everyone's pleasure (or good) counts equally. This is important since we cannot count one person more important than another. 

Arguments

Universal desire for Pleasure

The first argument I will present is as follows:

P1 you desire pleasurable states
P2 others desire pleasurable states
C1: we ought to act in order to seek pleasurable states, which entails doing the most good for the most number. 

Lack of evil decisions

Since Utilitarianism never leads to evil decisions, it ought to be followed. This argument will be defended as my opponent brings up situations where he claims that Utilitarianism leads to a clearly evil decision.

Conclusion
 
Utilitarianism is founded on the principal that we all seek pleasure,(or good) so we all ought to act to maximize pleasure (or good).It is also clear that Utilitarianism succeeds in being a system for objective morality, that does not lead to wrong conclusions.

Sources

[1]

Con
Thanks Jerrett. Though Utilitarianism seems intuitive, it has countless flaws which I will use to completely crack his case open. 

I. Paradox of Happiness

Happiness has been said to be desired on some level, but an overwhelming amount of happiness hurts the utilitarian's state. As an article from Berkley notices [1], there are four main problems due to happiness dominating your desires, which I will clarify here:
a) Less creative, less safe (take more risks) -- when you are completely uninhibited by logic, your emotion overpowers your ability to look at things from a broad perspective, thus defeating utilitarianism (in other words, one who perfectly follows utilitarianism will not be able to judge ideas based on utilitarianism!)
b) Unsuited towards each situation; -- Happiness means satisfaction, which can be stunting in dangerous situations where fear and doubt is necessary to make you think twice.
c) Types of happiness must be justified; -- having pride without any reason will lead to unjust arrogance, and lead to lack of further happiness in the future. Sorrow leads you the ability to remain humble and admit your mistakes, allowing for greater success in the future.
d) Pursuing happiness leads to lack of satisfaction -- By setting the unreasonable goal of "maximal happiness", one would always be worried about being unable to achieve perfection. Due to this, you would always be unsatisfied, since happiness's limit is potentially infinite, and it is impossible to reach infinity. (Or always be at the maximally happy state). Therefore, by following utilitarianism, you prevent yourself from achieving utilitarianism.

Not only so, but some people are masochists and enjoy the suffering in a way. It is difficult to say for certain if we should hit them or not with their permission. Would their disappointment of not being hit outweigh our own doubts and the joy they gain from suffering? Due to human emotion's changeability, it's difficult to say with 100% certainty.

II. Rights of the minority, other animals

There are many issues with "ends justify the means" that utilitarianism argues for. Given the choice of oppressing minority vs not oppressing minority, with majority disagreeing at the heart, the obvious choice in utilitarian aspect would be to oppress them, in favor of the majority. However, as the Declaration of Independence has stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". [2] So here I ask, out of all three rights, why have utilitarian mindset focused only on the third? Why does utilitarian not guarantee rights for everyone, only for the majority? It makes no sense. Why should we sacrifice even one person for the good of other people? He has not justified this possibility.

Pro has already conceded that there may be higher goods, and lower goods. There is the infamous idea, the "happiness monster". We could justify feeding everyone to a monster that gains more happiness than all of us combined. With the utilitarian principle, we must also measure other animals that may suffer in place of us, yet we clearly do not. The problem lies in that human rights and animal rights are fundamentally different with conflicting moral principles. For example, it is well known that some praying mantis cannibalize their mates. [3] Does this mean that the mates do not have the right to *not* be cannibalized? It's uncertain. We don't know. They evolved to this way due to how the nutrition works with mating. It's a strange tradition that wouldn't work with humans. What is utilitarian for us and what is utilitarian for animals are at conflict, and the desirable states wage a war that make utilitarianism fall part at its core.

III. Impossibility to measure happiness

Nobody can perfectly predict the future and know what impact one action will have on overall happiness. Similarly, the "happiness" is truly impossible to actually measure. Pro asserts that the sexual matter of happiness is lower than the mental state of happiness. But he has not considered how the physical intimacy may actually influence the emotional intimacy.

In addition, preferring physical torture to mental torture is ambiguous. It is well known that losing an arm would cause extreme mental shock and problems with trauma. The idea of mere discomfort vs comfort, and pleasure vs happiness blurs the lines. For example, is it justified to take drugs? Utilitarian's might say, yes, the artificial injection of dopamine would bring greater joy than your everyday life. But they fail to look at the overall picture, what if there was a better solution than to take drugs? And is pleasure truly "happiness"? Or look at another case, would we rather have a broken arm, or have ADHD and autism infuriating us every day? At the end of the day, the happiness results in relativity, and pursuing after lavish ideals (a loving partner of 20 years old, a big business industry) can be just as convincing as going after a more simple life style (dating a girl for one year, and having an internship job). The fact that your dreams and ideals heavily influence your "happiness" result, the actions conflict with each other, and you can't come up with an objective decision in terms of morality. 

IV. Changing Scenarios

Extending from the injection of dopamine blurring the lines between mental/emotional state and physical ability, our crux of what happiness is, becomes very confusing. For example, we would advocate for the birth of a child so long as the net happiness would be greater for the world. But if each person gives birth to a child, the resources would be drained throughout the world, making it bad to give birth to the child, and the ideal destroys itself. So is birth of a child good, or is it not good?

Utilitarianism seems to give a good idea, but fails to give a timeline or clear set up for what exactly would mean to have greater happiness. The difference and the setting between Act utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism must be clarified, else pro has no chance to win this debate. Because the problem with Act utilities is that it thinks it is able to look at each individual ideal and be able to decide what to do. But the acts together may form a completely different idea as a result. And Rule utilitarianism concerns the overarching ideas, and does the thing that is most likely to create the most happiness, while ignoring the individual problems that may cause problems over time. 

V. Obligation

The other big problem stemming from the changing scenarios is the lack of information given to us. We personally only experience what we know for ourselves, and can only decide based on the personal knowledge. Our own thinking and feelings are the only thing we can know for sure. There is no obligation towards other people, unless they personally infiltrate your personal happiness. For example, game theory often offers multiple different choices, where paradoxically the utilitarian gain would differ from choosing each one. The prisoner's dilemma tells us it would be most beneficial for our personal self if we choose to betray, and they stay silent. [4] This is utilitarian for us. But on the other hand, ironically we should both stay silent, because this leads to the less jail time overall. So utilitarian's think we should both stay silent. Perfectly rational people will not do this, however. No matter what happens, when you defect, you will get a better result. If you betray and they stay silent, you go free. If you betray and they betray, you only serve two years. The contradiction forms the central problem lacking in utilitarian aspect. Utilitarianism can only work if everyone stays perfectly cooperative. However, given the contradiction formed from majority defeating the minority, that means a certain group of people can always value their personal interest over others. As such, the prisoner's dilemma brings forth an idea that utilitarianism cannot solve, despite a seemingly obvious solution.

Round 2
Pro

Opening

Undefeatable has brought up a long list of objections, however no of them succeed at all. Also, it seems that he has misunderstood some fundamental points I made in my first round opening.

Rebuttal

A-
 Utilitarianism never states that one must shut off logic. It only states that “the most good for the most number should be a guiding principle of conduct”. This is simply a straw-man.
B- 
Again, Utilitarianism isn’t a blind obsession with happiness, one must make moral decisions that create the most good. Utilitarianists don’t just follow the happiness of a cliff. In some instances, fear and doubt are needed for survival, and since survival is good, it is completely coherent for the Utiitarianist to feel fear in dangerous situations. 
C-
As for the argument from pride and sorrow, this doesn’t refute Utilitarianism. In my opening, I stated that one must see the long-term effects of any decision. All Undefeatable did is sum up that point, that we must look into the future, to see if the outcomes are good, or bad. Just because something creates short-term good, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t erode long-term good. As this situation shows, if something leads to long-term goodness (such as staying humble) it ought be followed.
D-
When I said to maximize pleasure, I was saying to create pleasure, for everyone. Maximizing happiness only means making happiness, not reaching infinite happiness.


As for the argument from oppressing minorities, Utilitarianism never makes such a statement. All Utilitarianism does is do the most good for the most number. This includes minorities. If you look back in my opening to round 1, you would see that I stated that everyone’s good counts the same, so it logically follows that all people are created equal. Utilitarianism advocates equality for all. Why does it do this? Because equality for all is better than equality for some, and since Utilitarianism maximizes good it would be more consistent for the Utilitarianist to give everyone rights, not just the majority. One must look at the long-term effects at suppressing minorities. It would create a society that forces people to conform to the normal, and disowns the rest. This society would not be doing the most good for the most number, and thus would not be consistent with Utilitarianism morality. 

Nobody can perfectly predict the future and know what impact one action will have on overall happiness. 

This is true, however Utilitarianism never affirms that one must perfectly predict the future, but instead use our best judgment. The imperfection of the human condition to make mistakes, and to not be able to predict the entire future, does not dispute the idea of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism as a moral system cannot be debunked by our inability to perfectly carry it out.

 Pro asserts that the sexual matter of happiness is lower than the mental state of happiness.

I actually state that sexual pleasure is lower than emotional pleasure. I backed this up with the fact that emotional satisfaction brings a better sense of well-being then sexuaul satisfaction. Why is this? Let's look at the extremes, the best sexaul satisfaction is intercourse, and the best emotional satisfaction is being in love, being emotional healthy, and having friends and family. It’s clear that achieving emotional satisfaction is more important than acheiving sexaul satification. 

But he has not considered how the physical intimacy may actually influence the emotional intimacy.

Yes, it can, however that’s just the tip of the iceberg of emotional satisfaction, emotions can range from joy, and love, and gratitude. Sexual satisfaction is limited to just one emotion. Again, emotional satisfaction is deeper and more nessacry than sexaul satisfaction. Let's look at the other extreme. The worst sexual dissatisfaction is not having interscourse, or romance. This is completely livable, however the worse emotional dissatisfaction will lead to depression, or even suicide. It’s clear that emotional well-being is more necessary to have than sexual well-being. This is why emotional good is higher than sexual good. 

Undeaftable also states that in Utilitarianism, we should take drugs, because it can make us happy, however, this is bad since the Utilitarianist would be missing the bigger picture. 

I addressed problems like this in my opening to the first round. To quote myself:

Utilitarianism also accounts for the long-term effects of any decision. If a decision creates short-term good, but erodes good in the long-term, it would not fit into Utilitarianism morality.

Yes, doing drugs can seem good in the short-term, however it is bad in the long run. When Undeaflable said I missed the overall picture, he missed what I said in round one. 

Similarly, the "happiness" is truly impossible to actually measure

Actually it can. All we have to do is see how many benefits come out of a situation, and see if these benefits are a higher, or lower good. We also must be sure that the benefits outweigh the costs. So we CAN measure happiness, in an objective standpoint.

As for the happiness monster, the monster’s happiness would come from it’s sadistic nature, and sadistic happiness is the lowest of them all. Also, Utilitarianism states that everyone’s happiness counts the same. This means that it’s more logical to give a lot of people more happiness, then one person a lot of happiness. We must “share the happiness” one Utilitarianism. 

As for the argument from matis cannibalizing their mates, It doesn’t matter what the animals think, all that matters is what Utilitarianism says. There is nothing Utilitarian about what the mantis does, since it’s killing its mate. The mantis (to my knowledge) cannot even contemplate the philosophy of Utilitarianism, so to say that it’s Utilitarian for the matis to kill its mate is absurd, they don’t even understand the philosophy. 

As for the argument from relative happiness, and different life goals, what my dreams are do not make up my morality. What one should do with one’s life is not a moral decision, so this argument doesn’t even attack Utilitarianism, it just highlights the differences in people’s wants. Again, what Undefeatable just said has nothing to do with morality at all. 

So is the birth of a child good, or is it not good?

The birth of children is always good. But it does take up resources. What we have to do here is find a way to support the growing human population. Counselling other planets, or making advances in agriculture are ways to do this. This is not a threat to Utilitarianism. 

 There is no obligation towards other people, 

This is not an argument against Utilitarianism at all. Morality is a choice. You cannot force someone into being good. 

As for the prisoner’s dilemma.  The Utilitarian thing to do is both be silent. Then you might say, what if other people but their wants over other’s needs, like in exploiting minorities. This is their choice, again we cannot force people to act rightly, people will not always follow Utilitarianism. 

Utilitarianism can only work if everyone stays perfectly cooperative

Again, this doesn’t attack the core idea of Utilitarianism. Yes, it works best when everyone’s being moral and working together, however that’s a criticism of the human condition, not Utilitarianism. 

certain group of people can always value their personal interest over others

Yes people may do this, however they would not be  following Utilitarianism, they would be acting selfishly. Again, this is not a criticism of Utilitarianism, it’s criticism of the human condition. This does not debunk Utilitarianism, it just  shows how bad people will do bad things.

Conclusion

All of Undefeatble’s arguments fail. Some don’t address the core idea of Utilitarianism, others fall short because of the reasons stated above.

Con
Defense

I a) Utilitarianism never states that one must shut off logic.
When you are absorbed in your happiness at the maximum state, can you truly say you can think logically?

1b) Utilitarianism isn’t a blind obsession with happiness

But it is: We seek pleasure, as well as survival. So why does survival beat happiness in this case? Life is more important than happiness if Pro concedes this point.

1d) Maximizing happiness only means making happiness, not reaching infinite happiness
If the maximal state of happiness exists somewhere, then we will always be in doubt that we are making the most happiness possible. This point stands.


II  The monster’s happiness would come from its sadistic nature, and sadistic happiness is the lowest of them all.
And how do you know? How do you know it's not some omnibenevolent God? You say sadistic happiness is the lowest level, so now is BDSM (and similar self-harm) bad? You continuously assign lower and higher happiness arbitrarily. What makes something lower or higher happiness? 

The imperfection of the human condition to make mistakes, and to not be able to predict the entire future, does not dispute the idea of Utilitarianism. 
Utilitarianism as a moral system cannot be debunked by our inability to perfectly carry it out.

Oh. So you're saying, the consequences of our actions don't matter? Is it now about intentions? If I desired to be happy and planted a tree if succeeded, I say would usually raise my happiness. But the tree died. And now I'm not happy. So if my inability to predict whether the tree will make me happy, does not matter, that means that regardless of results, only my intention mattered. And intentional based morality is the opposite of utilitarianism.

III the best sexual satisfaction is intercourse, and the best emotional satisfaction is being in love, being emotionally healthy, and having friends and family. Achieving emotional satisfaction is more important than achieving sexual satisfaction. 
Besides the countless grammatical errors, Pro has made an empty assertion. If everyone is satisfied simply being in love and do not bother having sexual intercourse, humankind will go extinct, preventing further emotional satisfaction. The higher pleasures are contradictory here.

IV All we have to do is see how many benefits come out of a situation, and see if these benefits are a higher, or lower well.
And how do multiple lower goods stack up against a singular higher good? Is it a number? The measurement is ambiguous.

The mantis (to my knowledge) cannot even contemplate the philosophy of Utilitarianism, so to say that it’s Utilitarian for the mantis to kill its mate is absurd, they don’t even understand the philosophy. 
So now you're saying, if you can't understand Utilitarianism, you can do whatever you want. That goes to show that mere knowledge can impact whether utilitarianism is valid or not. 

What one should do with one’s life is not a moral decision, so this argument doesn’t even attack Utilitarianism, it just highlights the differences in people’s wants.
Each person works together to become a society. If I murder someone this is a severe attack and threat to society itself. If I pass a bill that is enforced by the government, this severely influences society as a whole. It can become a moral decision if it imposes on other people, or you have to vote on a collective decision. That is the point I am trying to make. 

The birth of children is always good.
Pro has failed to answer whether he believes in Act utilitarianism or Rule utilitarianism. This is a problem in his entire argument.

Pro has dropped the rights of the minority. By our rights declared inherent to human beings, you cannot justify killing an innocent to save many. With this argument alone, he loses the entire debate.

V. this is not a criticism of Utilitarianism, it’s a criticism of the human condition.

By Pro's logic, the human condition of "seeking pleasures" cannot be logical either. If Utilitarianism results in paradoxical situations where people are not obligated to follow it (as the majority's maximal pleasure will still be greater than the minority), then the reduction to egoism is justified. Humans seek their pleasure more than they care about other people's pleasure. As such, the grounding foundation of utilitarianism defeats utilitarianism, when we take a closer look.

Pro would want everyone who has the resources, to donate to the poor and people in need. But the raising of empathy to such a level is practically impossible and has no rational basis. Merely because we seek pleasures does not mean we will be able to reduce our pleasure to realize another person's pleasure may be equally important as us. 

Since I have more space to breathe, I will stack on another argument to defeat Pro's stance.

VI. Utilitarian Judgements Fail to Reach Utilitarian Result

Linking back to V as well, a study proves the selfish nature of man and the inability to view the whole perspective of utilitarianism, thus defeating the idea. By using multiple different scenarios to test the subjects, the researcher finds that they are more ruthless and less utilitarian. "‘utilitarian’ judgment was associated with a broadly immoral outlook concerning clear ethical transgressions in a business context, as well as with sub-clinical psychopathy." [1] (all quotes under here are from the same source)

Also, the "utilitarian" approach contradicted the ideas of the overall gain. The fact that you specifically said we seek pleasures, gives the impression that ourselves matter the most. This links to the second study from the article: "‘utilitarian’ judgment was associated with greater endorsement of rational egoism, less donation of money to a charity, and less identification with the whole of humanity, a core feature of classical utilitarianism". 

And just as pro failed to endorse the idea of saving five while killing one, the nature of humanity has encouraged our inaction. Once more, we are not obligated to save others. The suffering caused by our inaction, the negligence, was not as strong as lesser suffering directly caused by the action. " we found no association between ‘utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial dilemmas and characteristic utilitarian judgments relating to assistance to distant people in need, self-sacrifice, and impartiality, even when the utilitarian justification for these judgments was made explicit and unequivocal."

If anything, the "utilitarianism" conclusion only justifies psychopathic attitudes and the personal gain is still inherently in the person's mind, making it impossible to come upon such a judgment. When viewed in the third person, the general guiding rules are viewed differently in terms of fairness, merely due to the way they are worded. 

"These transgressions often involved violations of fairness rather than of harm norms, further suggesting that the observed disposition to ‘utilitarian’ judgment reflects a broader antisocial tendency rather than a specific deficit in aversion to causing ‘personal’ harm, much less a genuine concern for the greater good." 

This is further proved by the second study, which shows that the utilitarian judgments are ironically less concerned for "greater good" -- the ideals of "so-called ‘utilitarian’ judgment are often driven, not by concern for the greater good, but by a calculating, egoist, and broadly amoral outlook". I could delve into studies 3 and 4, but I'd just be repeating myself.

The result is this: Pro may endorse the utilitarian judgments in specific situations -- I will personally run over one person, to save five -- but he is unable to prove that the guiding principles will allow us to reach the utilitarian result -- I will reduce 10,000$ from my bank account to helping out a charity, poor people. Or, he may prove that we can reach Utilitarian results, through being selfless. But when you place yourself less than others, that means your life is not worth as much, destroying the fundamental nature of Utilitarianism. Therefore, Utilitarianism at the small (specific situation relating to yourself) cannot be said to apply to the big (overarching problems in society). This contradiction will be the fall of Utilitarianism.

I will end my argument with a single critical question that Pro will find difficult to answer:
  Yes, we seek pleasure. But do we seek it over all other things? After all, in essence, the only thing necessary for survival are food, sex, shelter (and implicitly, your life). Nowhere is happiness required. Why is happiness or welfare then, the answer to everything? 

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4259516/



Round 3
Pro

Opening 

Undefeatable's arguments fall short. This is because most of them do not actually attack Utilitarianism. The some that remain that do attack Utilitarianism are not strong enough.

Rebuttal

you are absorbed in your happiness at the maximum state, can you truly say you can think logically?

Utilitarianism is not being absorbed by happiness, it’s doing the most good for the most number, not the most happiness for the most number. There are other goods other than happiness, such as knowledge and survival. This is a strawman, which is a prevalent theme in Con’s arguments.

We seek pleasure, as well as survival. So why does survival beat happiness in this case? 

So why does survival beat happiness? Because it’s a higher good. Why is it a higher good? Because it creates more benefits, human life is infinitely valuable, and without life, there is no happiness, happiness is dependent on survival. Higher goods create more benefits then lower goods, we do not assign higher or lower status to goods arbitrarily. 

Life is more important than happiness if Pro concedes this point.

It’s not a concession, I have always believed that survival is more important than happiness.

How do you know it's not some omnibenevolent God? 

This is absurd, an omnibenevolent God must love his people, so it could not be the happiness monster, by definition. An omnibenevolent God would not ask for sacrifices to itself.

so now is BDSM (and similar self-harm) bad?

Yep. unnecessary harm is bad

So you're saying, the consequences of our actions don't matter? Is it now about intentions

Again a straw man. I never said consequences don't matter, as for intentions, they matter to. Some intentions create a higher probability to have good outcomes, thus are more moral.

  But the tree died. And now I'm not happy. So if my inability to predict whether the tree will make me happy, does not matter, that means that regardless of results, only my intention mattered. And intentional based morality is the opposite of utilitarianism.

Yes, you could not predict whether the tree died or not, however, you still did good since you planted a tree, and planting trees are good. Since you are a flawed being (we all are) you could not predict the future perfectly. However, when the tree was alive, it still produced oxygen (which is good), so you still did good. If the tree didn’t die, you would have done more good. Again, just because you didn’t carry it out perfectly, that's not an argument against the moral system, that’s an argument against you, you caused the tree to die, not Utilitarianism.

 If everyone is satisfied simply being in love and do not bother having sexual intercourse, humankind will go extinct, preventing further emotional satisfaction. The higher pleasures are contradictory here.

Utilitarianism is designed for moral decisions, to try to use Utilitarianism outside of ethics (for example, on whether one should have a baby) is misguided.

 how do multiple lower goods stack up against a singular higher good?

Lower goods can never counteract a higher good. For example, knowledge is higher than emotional good. No matter how happy you are in ignorance, you can never be justified in being ignorant. 

 if you can't understand Utilitarianism, you can do whatever you want. 

Actually, yes. Since human beings are knowledgeable that they can harm others, they are held accountable, mantis are not held accountable. Accountability is a matter of if you know what you are doing. Since the mantis doesn't know it’s doing bad, it’s not held accountable, however, this does not take away the fact that the mantis is doing bad.

. If I murder someone this is a severe attack and threat to society itself. If I pass a bill that is enforced by the government, this severely influences society as a whole. It can become a moral decision if it imposes on other people, or you have to vote on a collective decision. That is the point I am trying to make. 

Yes, that is when it becomes a moral decision, however, life styles are not moral decisions. Your example was life styles, not moral decisions, the example was:

 and pursuing after lavish ideals (a loving partner of 20 years old, a big business industry) can be just as convincing as going after a more simple life style (dating a girl for one year, and having an internship job). The fact that your dreams and ideals heavily influence your "happiness" result.

So that wasn’t the point you were trying to make, with all due respect.

you cannot justify killing an innocent to save many.

Yes, you can. According to Undefeatable, we should let many people die, to save just one person. This is morally absurd. How can you justify letting many people die to save just one. 

Pro has dropped the rights of the minority.

According to your logic, you have dropped the rights of the majority, with the example you gave, you would let the majority die to save the minority. Also, I'm not dropping the rights of the minority, because all people’s good count the save, I’m just deciding to save more people, and you want to decide to save less, that’s all.

 Utilitarianism results in paradoxical situations where people are not obligated to follow it (as the majority's maximal pleasure will still be greater than the minority)

Again, a straw man. All people’s good counts the same. If I must repeat myself to Undefeatable, I will. All people’s good counts the same. This means that all people are created equal, this means that the minority counts too. 

then the reduction to egoism is justified. Humans seek their pleasure more than they care about other people's pleasure. As such, the grounding foundation of utilitarianism defeats utilitarianism, when we take a closer look.

Utilitarianism is the most good for the most people, this means the Utilitarianist would place others just as high as themselves.. This is just another example of a strawman.

 we seek pleasures, gives the impression that ourselves matter the most. This links to the second study from the article: "‘utilitarian’ judgment was associated with greater endorsement of rational egoism, less donation of money to a charity, and less identification with the whole of humanity, a core feature of classical utilitarianism". 

Utilitarianism is doing the most good for the most number, thus, rational egoism is the opposite of Utilitarianism. As for the study, It attempts to prove that Utilitarianism is not Utilitarianism (but that’s it egoism) this is like saying a triangle is a square. This is absurd to say.

We not obligated to save others. The suffering caused by our inaction, the negligence, was not as strong as lesser suffering directly caused by the action.

So are you saying that we are not obligated to save others? That’s a major concussion.  Also, even if you cause it through inaction, you still caused it, whether through action or inaction, one must make the decision that produces the most good for the most number. 

If anything, the "utilitarianism" conclusion only justifies psychopathic attitudes and the personal gain

Again, strawman. Utilitarianism is the opposite of egoism. 

This is further proved by the second study, which shows that the utilitarian judgments are ironically less concerned for "greater good" -

Again, strawman.  Utilitarianism is the most good for the most people. I call into concern the studies’ methodology. This study is saying that selfish decisions are Utilitarian, which is again like saying a triangle is a circle. This doesn’t make sense. 

This study has a serious problem. It defines utilitarianism as being selfish, however, that’s not the definition of Utilitarianism. 

But when you place yourself less than others, that means your life is not worth as much, destroying the fundamental nature of Utilitarianism

Again a straw man. I never said to place yourself lower than others, just to treat all people’s good the same. Utilitarianism can be selfless, in terms of sacrificing oneself for others, however, this doesn’t mean you are less of a person, only that more people saved is greater than just you being saved.
Yes, we seek pleasure. But do we seek it over all other things? After all, in essence, the only thing necessary for survival are food, sex, shelter (and implicitly, your life). Nowhere is happiness required. Why is happiness or welfare then, the answer to everything? 

Again, a straw man. I never said that happiness is the answer to everything,. I said that the most good for the most number is the guiding principle of conduct. This means that food, sex, and shelter also count, since they are good. Again, Utilitarianism is not a blind obsession with happiness, it’s doing the most good for the most number (there are other goods than just happiness.


I decide Act Utilitarianism. Whether a decision is moral or not is dependent on whether the action is better or not. One does not need to follow an entire code, (or set of rules, like on Rule Utilitarianism) they just need to see if the action will bring upon better consequences or not.

Conclusion

Undefeatable has used straw men to attack the position of Utilitarianism. This does not mean that he’s a bad debater (he’s actually pretty good) however, this does mean he must attack what I believe, he must argue against what I have said. For example, I have never said that we are to be “absorbed in your happiness at the maximum state”. He made that up. 








Con
Very good, Jarrett. But my argument is not a strawman, it is a steel man against true Utilitarianism (if it is argued well). There are countless problems with your rebuttal against my questioning, and I will show why.

VII INCORRECT CONCLUSION

In round 1, Jarrett had made an overbroad statement concerning pleasurable states. This in essence is what happiness is. Not everyone seeks knowledge; some are satisfied with ignorance and duly living on with their lives. Not everyone wants a deep emotional connection as a higher good; the hook-up culture is rising and one night stands are becoming more common. As such, the definition of higher and lower goods is ambiguous and based on Mill or Bentham's personal view, and may or may not actually result in the greatest good for greatest amount of people. Jarrett's claim that life as a good is infinitely invaluable, is the core flaw of his assumption in utilitarianism.

If there are other systems of morality which are more accurate based on assumptions of mankind (at least, with Jarrett's bare minimum syllogism) then we would prefer them. The logic that leads to these conclusions are more strict, and more reasonable than utilitarianism.

A) Egoism

P1 you desire pleasurable states
P2 others desire pleasurable states
P3: we seek our own pleasurable states, more than others
->Pro's lacking premise: We value others' pleasurable states as much as ours <-

I have proven within the study that the people who come up with utilitarian decisions in sacrificing lives, fail to come up with utilitarian decisions with regards to donating to charity. People value their own lives and their families far more than the people in the foreign country. In fact, I could even argue that, your own life is a higher good than the other person's life. This defeats the fundamental premise that everyone's lives matter equally. Sure, from a third person perspective, five strangers are worth more than one stranger. But by definition of higher and lower good, Pro would admit that five strangers cannot defeat one family member. So you cannot kill your son to save one hundred foreign people. Therefore, Egoism (valuing yourself, and your own values) is more justifiable than utilitarianism.

C1: We ought to act in order to seek our own pleasurable states (compared to others')

B) Virtue Ethics
P1 Higher goods always take value over lower goods
Ex: Lives have infinite value, so one can never be justified to sacrifice one to save others. Knowledge as Pro says is an innate higher good, and no matter how much physical gain you have, it cannot compare to these mental goods.
P2 Therefore we should always act in a way that values the innate Higher Goods, whenever possible.
->Pro's lacking premise: Differentiating the idea of always valuing certain virtues over others, which is virtue ethics. As there are rules that enforce the essential rights and virtue of man within virtue ethics, Pro's "Rule Utilitarianism" is impossible to differentiate between Virtue Ethics. <-

Pro has admitted that you can kill one life to save many others. It is irrelevant whether or not happiness monster is a valid argument, this is merely only one way to attack utilitarianism. Pro has asserted that you must have the amount of gain to be greater than the amount of lost. But why must we accept any amount of value lost, much less infinite value lost, with killing of one life? If Pro says we cannot even kill one life, because it is infinite value lost, then he believes in virtue ethics -- values we must always adhere to no matter the consequence.

C) Deontology

P1 you desire pleasurable states
P2 others desire pleasurable states
P3 Because we seek pleasurable states, we want to achieve pleasurable states. (implied logic)
C1: we ought to act in order to seek pleasurable states, which entails doing the most good for the most number. 

This seems obvious, until you realize... the conclusion for utilitarianism comes from Deontology (intentions matter more than consequences)! We want something to occur. We work with the intention for something to occur. That is why we can come up with the logic that we want pleasurable things to occur. But by con's logic, it does not matter if we seek pleasure states or not, as long as we accomplish it, we gain utilitarianism. If you were really justifying the ends based on the means, we should begin from the end (without our own wants as reasoning):

P1: Pleasurable states are good for you.
P2: It does not matter whether you actually sought pleasurable states or not.
C1: We ought to act in order to seek pleasurable states, which entails doing the most good for the most number. 

As you can see, the steel man of utilitarianism doesn't work. Why are pleasurable states inherently good for you? Yes, you say normal people want the pleasurable states (to a certain moderation and extent). But utilitarianism comes from our intentions and desires. You must believe in Deontology to believe in Utilitarianism. Otherwise, you have to start from the conclusion and go back to what caused this conclusion. So is Good Good, because we intended for it? Or is Good Good, because we achieved it? Pro would want to say the latter, but if only achievement matters, then it wouldn't matter if you believed in utilitarianism or not. It would be valid if I knew nothing and simply did what was the most good for the most number. It would be valid if I did not seek pleasurable states and did the most good for the most number. Therefore, P1 and P2 are not relevant to the conclusion. 

Conclusion

Pro wants us to be held accountable for our knowledge and its relation to the conclusion we reached. But by his logic, knowledge is irrelevant so long as we get things done. The essential problem is that he does not care about the process to which utilitarianism is achieved. He thinks the greatest good is good, no matter how much negative things there are. But he contradicts himself by saying that the lost of a single great negative thing is unacceptable (lower good cannot defeat higher good). So which is it? Are willing to sacrifice something worth infinity, to gain infinity times nine? Or are all infinities equal, and therefore, you cannot sacrifice one infinity to gain "a greater infinity"? 

If he wants the former, then he admits that multiple higher goods defeat a single higher good, and thus the higher good cannot have truly infinite value -- there is always a higher infinite value. But by definition of infinity, we should never act to lose an infinite amount of good. If Pro desires the latter, then he speaks of Virtue theory, and admits there may be cases where the greater good is not so good.


Round 4
Pro
Opening

Undefeatable says in his opening that he is not straw manning, but attacking the true form of Utilitarianism. However he’s missing something here, in round three he wasn’t straw manning, but in round two he was, he said that Utilitarianism is all about happiness, and not about other goods, this is a straw man, utilitarianism is more than just happiness. 

Rebuttal

Jarrett had made an overbroad statement concerning pleasurable states. This in essence is what happiness is

No, it is not, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary[2], pleasurable is enjoyment, or pleasure, it is NOT happiness. Notice the list of synonyms for pleasurable:
Notice how good is a synonym for pleasurable, and happiness is not. By definition, Undefeatable is wrong. There are other pleasures (or goods), for example, knowledge or survival, which are higher then happiness (since they create more benefits), and sex and food (which are lower, because they create less benefits). (When I use the word food, I mean food that is extra, and not needed for survival, so sweets, hamburgers and coffee are the foods I'm talking about. I am not talking about food in terms of survival, I’m talking about eating for enjoyment.)
Not everyone seeks knowledge; some are satisfied with ignorance and duly living on with their lives
But this is not good for them, knowledge is power, and a knowledgeable public will elect better leaders, and knowledgeable leaders will make better decisions. This ties into my last point, where Utilitarianism is about pleasurable states (or good) and not just happiness. Again, this a straw-man of what I believe, I believe that we ought to do the most good for the most number, this entails more than just happiness. Speaking off straw-mans..
 my argument is not a strawman, it is a steel man against true Utilitarianism 
Undefeatable conceded that his arguments are against what he deems “true Utilitarianism” he isn’t responding to what I believe, rather some other form which he deems better then mine. This would be okay if we were arguing that form, but we’re not, we’re debating mine. Even if this form is the proper Utilitarianism all Undeafeatable would have proven is that I’m Un     .
Not everyone wants a deep emotional connection as a higher good; the hook-up culture is rising and one night stands are becoming more common
However, it is better for them to have a deeper emotional connection while doing it. Why? Becuase this erodes the sacredness of sex. Why sex have to be sacred? Because 
 As such, the definition of higher and lower goods is ambiguous … and may or may not actually result in the greatest good for greatest amount of people
Utilitarianism isn’t based on popular opinion, it’s based on what brings forth the most good, and tangible benefits to society as a whole.
 In fact, I could even argue that your own life is a higher good than the other person's life. This defeats the fundamental premise that everyone's lives matter equally. Sure, from a third person perspective, five strangers are worth more than one stranger. But by definition of higher and lower good, Pro would admit that five strangers cannot defeat one family member
Utilitarianism advocates that we look at the third person perspective. It never advocates that we look only at our own perspective, so five strangers would beat one family member, since we must look at the third person perception. 
Egoism (valuing yourself, and your own values) is more justifiable than utilitarianism.
 
Egoism is only viable if you value yourself over others, if you look at the third person perception, then Utilitarianism is justiciable.
 
 Pro's lacking premise: Differentiating the idea of always valuing certain virtues over others, which is virtue ethics. As there are rules that enforce the essential rights and virtue of man within virtue ethics, Pro's "Rule Utilitarianism" is impossible to differentiate between Virtue Ethics. <
 
No it is not. Utilitarianism look at the benefits that come out of certain goods, and rates them higher or lower as such. While virtue ethics looks at the essence of the character of something to describe it as good or back. In short, Utilitarianism rates something good because of its benefits, and virtue ethics rates something good because of its character.
 
  If Pro says we cannot even kill one life, because it is infinite value lost, then he believes in virtue ethics -- values we must always adhere to no matter the consequence.
 
Actually no. there’s always infinite loss when someone dies, since that person will no longer be able to exist, thus no more good will ever come to them, so survival is the highest good. Again, if someone is dead, no more good will come to them, making survival the highest good. On virtue ethics, things are good or bad, regardless of consequences, however, on Utilitarianism, things are good or bad depending on the consequences, and losing life has always had the worst consequences (morning, sorrow, and the end of the person’s existence,), therefore it’s the worst thing that could happen. 
 
As for Con’s statement on Deontology, no, this is not deontology. We desire pleasurable states, because they are good for you. If pleasurable states are good for you, then we ought to act in order to seek pleasurable states, which entails doing the most good for the most number. Con is just rephrasing my premises.
 
P1: this can be said either way, since they mean the same thing, pleasurable states are good for you, or you desire pleasurable states (again, we desire this because it is good for you, they are saying the same thing)
 
P2: others desire pleasurable states / pleasurable states are good for others
 
C1: we ought to act in order to seek pleasurable states, which entails doing the most good for the most number
 
Why are pleasurable states inherently good for you?
Because they are by definition, this is like asking: “why is a triangle a three sided shape?” 
 
As for desires vs. achievements, the reason we desire something is because we want it achieve it, the “you desire pleasurable states” premise comes from the fact that they are good for you. You desire it, because it is good, you desire the end, because it justifies any means, (unless the means make someone else's end worse). 
So which is it? Are willing to sacrifice something worth infinity, to gain infinity times nine? Or are all infinities equal, and therefore, you cannot sacrifice one infinity to gain "a greater infinity"? 
I don’t understand this part. Could you elaborate? Thank you.
But by definition of infinity, we should never act to lose an infinite amount of good. If Pro desires the latter, then he speaks of Virtue theory
I will respond to this by restating my point from earlier, losing life has always had the worst consequences (morning, sorrow, and the end of the person’s existence,), therefore it’s the worst thing that could happen. This means that death (unsurprisingly) has the worst consequences, and thus ought to be treated as infinitely bad. This is Utilitarianism, since it’s following the consequences of events.
Conclusion 
Undefeatable says in his opening that he is not straw manning, but attacking the true form of Utilitarianism. However he’s missing something here, in round three he wasn’t straw manning, but in round two he was, he said that Utilitarianism is all about happiness, and not about other goods, this is a straw man, utilitarianism is more than just happiness. As for the points he made in round three, they are all invalid 
 
Sources
 [1]
 
 


Con
I will keep refutations short, as Jarrett has been going in circles and failing to back up Utilitarianism and address my problems.

Firstly, he tries to reassert the idea of pleasurable states being what is good and desirable based on its definition. But he fails once again to consider its origins. There is a reason that Mill alludes to general happiness. It is the overarching ideal that guides our decision. When we stub our toe we feel pain, the opposite of gaining the pleasurable state. And when we accomplish something that we consider good, we receive a reward in our head, the pride, and satisfaction of gaining such ideals. As such, the emotional feedback of happiness is definitively important to sustain the very ideas that we live upon. Keep in mind that, some people are suffering so much that they feel that they must end their lives, weighing their horrible future against stopping it in the middle. Jarrett makes an overly broad statement and thinks "whatever is agreeable is good", which still goes in circles around the idea and fails to think of the impacts. For example, his definitions list delicious as pleasurable, yet cannibalism is heavily considered immoral, despite being a delicacy in some areas. The actual implementation of this would also be problematic, and the invisible economic costs compared to the pleasure gained is simply impossible to balance and weigh. Not to mention our feedback system for our taste is still similar to dopamine given by the brain. Unless Pro comes up with a better standard than "happiness" (which at least is proven to exist with chemical feedback in the brain), then he must still yet address arguments I-VI as a whole.

Jarrett tries to negate egoism by saying we must all think of decisions in a third-person perspective, but this is completely unreasonable. Jim deciding for Jim himself is completely different from Jim deciding for Mary. Jim says he values himself the most because his evolution has been hard-wired to protect himself. It is perfectly reasonable for him to be selfish and save his own life over Mary (assuming Mary is a stranger). Even if Mary could live longer, produce more pleasurable states, blah blah blah, the self-sacrifice is unjustified. We are not robots, and we do not expect the obligation for the unknown to outweigh the obligation for the known. If Pro is correct that knowledge should be valued, then inherently knowing about your own lives holds power/"good" greater than the other person -- whom you lack knowledge of -- and hence you should still be selfish and save yourself. Which defeats utilitarianism.

May I remind voters, that pro also has failed to address, time and time again throughout this debate, how slavery may be justified on the minority for the greater good of the majority according to utilitarianism. Jarrett wants to give the majority of the overall benefit of the doubt, but through this, he ignores each individual's rights and desires. Many decisions are made only by one individual. Certainly, Jarrett's ideals may succeed if everyone acts as one within a society. But when a person has to think of his wants, he must consider himself as an individual before thinking of the overall "greater good".

Secondly, Jarrett contradicts himself by saying utilitarianism says whatever is good for society is good, but then goes back by stabbing himself in the foot by saying murder can practically never be justified because it has the worst consequences the vast majority of the time. But if I miraculously find one single exception where one person killed will save 100 people, say, in a ticking time bomb situation of killing a terrorist, then I should do it. Jarrett already admitted greater good for a greater number of people is good according to utilitarianism. So I ask Jarrett and the voters to relook through Jarrett's assumptions. It seems more likely to me that virtue theory applies here: that the characteristic of depriving someone of liberty, life, etc. is inherently bad and should be avoided at all cost, and is a bad action even if the consequence is good. Because it seems absurd to suggest that murder can be good in some situations, especially since Jarrett already admitted in the vast majority of situations it is bad. His act utilitarianism is falling apart because he is already mistaking it for rule utilitarianism (or vice versa).

Finally, Jarrett tries to say that utilitarianism can still be judged upon the reasoning for seeking desire, but fails to answer my question: Is "good" good because we desire it, or because we achieve it? It seems ridiculous that I can wish to push evil onto you and still "do good actions" so long as you achieve pleasurable states, perhaps through pure accident. It seems absurd that even robots without knowledge, or even Jarrett's denial about praying mantises, can still "do good actions" or be considered moral agents, despite lack of knowledge of utilitarianism and understanding pleasurable states. Not to mention lack of choice to do otherwise and difficult to ascertain true consciousness.

Conclusion: Jarrett claims powerfully in the opening that evil actions are never performed under utilitarianism, but contradicts himself. First, he says that yes, you can kill one to save many. Next, he says, depriving someone of life is the very worst thing you can do. So which is it? Can I kill one to save many, no matter the situation? Even if the family as a virtue or good may be greater than strangers as a good (as virtue theory would argue)? Even if myself may be a greater good than yourself? (As I cannot mentally gain a stranger's knowledge, life, or "goods" that are oh-so-wanted by my natural state) Or would you say that killing a person is wrong, even if the outcome can be good?
Round 5
Pro
OPENING

Undefeable used the same straw man he has been using in the debate. His other arguments will be dealt with as they follow

REBUTTAL

As such, the emotional feedback of happiness is definitively important to sustain the very ideas that we live upon

Yes, but it’s not the only one, again, I will have to point out the strawman. Co says that I base my morality on happiness, but I do not. He asserts that happiness is the measure of Utilitarianism’s morality. However, there’s then just happiness in life, intellectual goods exist. Yes, they may bring on happiness, but they also along you to make educated decisions and. 

Jarrett makes an overly broad statement and thinks "whatever is agreeable is good"
It’s not overboard, I was just listing out the synonyms of good from Merriam-Webster. Happiness wasn’t one of them.

his definitions list delicious as pleasurable, yet cannibalism is heavily considered immoral, despite being a delicacy in some areas.

It might be delicious to some, I guess, but this doesn’t mean it’s moral to do. The survival of the human is more important than someone else's personal taste. Why? Because survival is a higher good then taste. Why? Because there’s more benefits to survival then having a nice meal. With survival you have emotional good (which includes more then just happiness, since there’s peace, ), intellectual good, survival , and the other synonyms for good that were listed. With taste, you only have that, taste. 

Unless Pro comes up with a better standard than "happiness" (which at least is proven to exist with chemical feedback in the brain), then he must still yet address arguments I-VI as a whole.

I’m going to ask one more time (since after this I have no other times) to please stop being strawmanned. Con has repeatedly said that my standard is happiness. I have repeatedly pointed out this strawman and corrected him, there's more to just happiness (which includes more than just happiness, since there’s peace,), there’s intellectual good, survival, emotional good, and the other synonyms for good that were listed. 

Jarrett tries to negate egoism by saying we must all think of decisions in a third-person perspective, but this is completely unreasonable

Actually it isn’t everyone I know sees the bigger picture, It’s more natural too. Also, since Utilitarianism deals with doing the most good for the most number, Egoism is the exact opposite of Utilitarianism, and thus is not even relevant. 

Con then gives a situation with Jim and Mary. saying that Jim doesn’t have to see the bigger picture, that he can be an egocentric person. He could, however, not follow Utilitarianism morality. Thus is not even a critique of utilitarianism morality, and thus is irrelevant in this debate. 

 If Pro is correct that knowledge should be valued, then inherently knowing about your own lives holds power/"good" greater than the other person -- whom you lack knowledge of -- and hence you should still be selfish and save yourself. Which defeats utilitarianism.

Undefeatable misrepresented what I said. I didn’t give permission to act selfishly when you don’t know about a person, I was stating that having Knowledge is better than ignorance. It had nothing to do with whether or you knew the person or not, it has to do with the leaking of knowledge. 

May I remind voters, that pro also has failed to address, time and time again throughout this debate, how slavery may be justified on the minority for the greater good of the majority according to utilitarianism.

May I remind the voters that I HAVE answered this time and time again. Let me make it simple:

P1 the rights to everyone outweighs the rights to the majority (since more people are in the entire population then in the majority of the population)

P2 it is more Utilitarian to give the rights to everyone, not just the majority.

C1 on Utilitarianism, we ought to act to give everyone rights, including the minority, since that contains more people then the majority.  

Jarrett's ideals may succeed if everyone acts as one within a society

Yep, that’s the goal of Utilitarianism.

But when a person has to think of his wants, he must consider himself as an individual before thinking of the overall "greater good".

This is only true on egoism, however, I am defending Utilitarianism. On Utilitarianism, we must do the most good for the most number. This means that we must think about the greater good before ourselves, what we personally want is irrelevant to what the most amount of people we can help need. I may want to do something immoral, however, we must think about society before ourselves. I’m calling for people to not think about what they want, instead for what’s good for the greatest amount. Saying that we should place ourselves first is not an argument against Utilitarianism, it just shows that you are against it.

virtue theory applies here: that the characteristic of depriving someone of liberty, life, etc. is inherently bad and should be avoided at all cost, and is a bad action even if the consequence is good

Actually, no. I see where you're coming from, but with all do respect, no. Murder is bad becuause of the consequences. The consequences are all that matters on Utilitarianism, nothing else. So why is killing bad all of the time (unless it saves more lives that it takes)? Because bad things happen when people kill. This is different from saying that something is inherently bad. If murdering brings good consequences I would kill all the time, however I don’t. I don’t kill because of the consequences, not because it’s inherently not good. There are many times I would kill, because it brings upon good consequences, such as killing one instead of five in the trolly problem, or killing a bank robber that has hostages. Killing isn’t inherently good, or bad, but it does bring upon bad consequences most of the time. However, when it brings upon good consequences, (such as the trolly problem, or killing a hostage taker, or killing an evil dictator), it must be done. On virtue ethics, killing is inherently bad. On Utilitarianism, killing isn’t inherently bad, it’s only evil when it brings upon bad consequences, and is good when it brings apon good consequences (such as killing a hostage taker, a dictator, etc..)

As for “it’s good because we desire it” vs “it’s good because we achieve it”. 

It seems ridiculous that I can wish to push evil onto you and still "do good actions" so long as you achieve pleasurable states, perhaps through pure accident.

This Idea is best visualized through an example. 

Let’s say Bob goes to rob a house in the middle of the night, so he breaks a window into a house. Without him knowing it, there was a woman dying of carbon monoxide poisoning in her sleep. Seeing the women, Bob runs away. The carbon monoxide goes out of the room. Breaking the window saved the woman's life.

Let’s analyze the situation. Did Bob wish to do good? No. Did bob achieve good? Yes. What was Bob’s actions? Breaking the window. 

Okay, it seems here that Bob's action’s lead to the women’s life being saved, so yes he did something good. It is true that Bob intended to do bad, and if he achieved what he wanted, he would have. I see no problem here, bob did good, because (luckly) he did not carry out his actions. Calling something ridiculous doesn’t prove it’s ridiculous.

 murder can practically never be justified because it has the worst consequences the vast majority of the time

I only said that when considering lower goods. You can never jusfty getting money, sex, happiness, etc. by taking a life. Only when you save more lives then you take can you justify killing.

. It seems absurd that even robots without knowledge, or even Jarrett's denial about praying mantises, can still "do good actions" or be considered moral agent

They are not moral agents. They may hypothetically do good or bad, however they do not know it. A moral agent, by definition, knows they are doing good. 

Let’s say a murderer’s about to kill five people, but a giant rock falls on the murderer. The rock “did good” in a sense, but is not a moral agent, since it didn;t know it’s doing good. The same with the robot or the mantis.

you can kill one to save many. Next, he says, depriving someone of life is the very worst thing you can do. So which is it?

You can kill one life to save many, however, if you do it for any other reason, it cannot be justified. Again, if you kill , except to save other lives, you cannot justify it, since survival is the highest good (since the most benefits come from survival).


CONCLUSION

Undefeatable used the same straw man he has been using throughout the debate, to repeat, THERE ARE OTHER GOODS OTHER THAN HAPPINESS. Also, for reasons listed above, his other arguments fall flat. 

Thank you Undefeatable for a lively debate!!! 

Con
I have said what needs to be said. Utilitarianism May justify good consequences, but practically anything can be justified so long as you can call it a “good”. Actions fall apart and the basis for society is lost: Notice how Jarrett only alluded to knowledge and life as universal, the former which is already controversial when used in the wrong hands. If killing is morally ambiguous then he defeats his own argument. Pro says it is just whenever the outcome has a net benefit. I fail to see the logical jump where action is just — only the consequence was just. Jarrett has failed to contest that different people’s lives may value more to different people. He has failed to justify loss of an innocents liberty or life as both are infinitely valuable and he think bigger infinities may exist in utilitarianism somehow. As such, I recommend voters to give me spelling and grammar point as well as the argument point. Thanks for the debate.