A Defense of Utilitarianism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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!!!
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/
- agreeable,
- blessed
- (also blest),
- congenial,
- darling,
- delectable,
- delicious,
- delightful,
- delightsome,
- dreamy,
- dulcet,
- enjoyable,
- felicitous,
- good,
- grateful,
- gratifying,
- heavenly,
- jolly,
- luscious,
- nice,
- palatable,
- pleasant,
- pleasing,
- pretty,
- satisfying,
- savory
- (also savoury),
- sweet,
- tasty,
- Welcome
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?
As it's a huge debate, a round by round analysis will supposedly satisfy the debate spirit.
Round 1: In the first round, Pro propounded a very basic opening statement. His stance was obvious but he decided to keep it that way with no pressing into the matter. His syllogism was not defended properly; rather was just a mere statement to let Con know about it. Such weak argumentation had already faltered his position right away. Con's position in R1 was quite clear and he easily made a strong case for himself with some good pieces of refutation. R1 to CON.
Round 2: In the second round, Pro accumulated rebuttals against R1 of Con. In the process, Pro's arguments seemed rather muddling with personal opinions and contradictions. For instance, Pro says Utilitarianism talks about 'equal good for all' including the minorities. On another point he says, not everyone will follow utilitarianism and so the majority can't be forced if they believe selfishly that their needs are greater than those of minorities. End result? The minority exploitation continues because they just won't follow utilitarianism. Pro loses the objective ground he's defending at this point. Con addresses this very point brilliantly in his "rebuttal V". Con does a good job with his "rebuttal II" as well when he challenges Pro's objective claims of greater goods over lower goods. In "rebuttal VI", Con makes another compelling case as he links utilitarianism with the tendency of selfishness and psychopathic characteristics which ultimately self-defeats utilitarian goals. He briefly mentions the gist in "rebuttal II" by coining that "intentional based morality is just the opposite of utilitarianism". All in all, Con made a very structured response to Pro's unorganized compilation of utilitarian ideas. R2 to CON.
Round 3: In this round, Pro does well by reasserting that utilitarianism is not all about pleasure/happiness and also that its application is rather bounded by the walls of ethics not daily affairs. He goes on to defend the idea of treating most people's good well to be the primary goal of utilitarianism principles. The debate turns to considering personal happiness in the mix of utilitarianism at this point. Pro attempts to include personal good in the utilitarianism whereas Con brings out the concept of egoism. Con resorts to the previous study that Pro countered as flawed methodology and adopts a first person perspective on utilitarianism. Pro escapes that allegation of selfishness in the next round with a third person perspective. Con traps Pro with his virtue ethics argument and his conclusion reflects the self-contradiction that Pro had been dealing with. Pro already remarked in R3 that intentions matter as well but Con fails to notice that and loses his grip in the Deontology argument. R3 to PRO.
Round 4: Pro tries to clear the air again with the definition of pleasure which was a good move given how Con was focusing on 'happiness' being the sole factor. Pro countered the deontology argument from Con convincingly. He compares virtue ethics with utilitarianism stating the latter deciding for good/bad based on consequences. This argument falls pretty weak as predicting future consequences can never be a base to build upon a moral system. Besides, Pro hasn't defined any measuring stick to settle on the short/long term effects/consequences and so in terms of objectivity, virtue ethics trumps utilitarianism. Con questions the principle of maximal good for a rare society that would be considered taboo in an ideal 21st century utilitarian society. Also, Con re-spawns the self-contradictory minority issue that Pro failed to objectively answer. R4 to CON
Round 5: The last round was rather the sum of all that came about in the previous 4 rounds. Both the parties went on to repeat themselves and so I've called this a tie. R5 is tied.
Overall
-----------
Arguments: To Con
Sources: To Con [Pro provided no convincing source to back up his claims from an objective standpoint]
SnG; Tie
Conduct: Tie
sorry couldnt get around to it, but Safalcon's vote looked pretty good
Ping
Thank you for voting.
I'm hoping I still can, but consider this a ping
There's no contest in voting, and that's unfortunate because your vote was a brilliant piece of work. It certainly deserves kudos. Well done!
The hour is short and I intend to vote. I hope I can get it done before the time closes. Again, bravo.
ping me tomorrow, I may be able to squeeze out a vote on this.
Vote bump
sure. I'll just clear out my affairs and look into it soon.
Want to vote?
vote bump
Sorry about the last round. I might need to work on my final round conclusions. I couldn’t think of anything new so I just did an overarching touch on ideas.
also, if Virtue Ethics' differentiation seems confusing (since I admitted you failed to show differentiation), the implication is that, it is more likely that the action itself is wrong, rather than the outcome is right or wrong
(Utilitarian would say the overall majority has the right to be given moral duty, while I am arguing for individual duty in a sense)
I can clarify this in R4 if you like.
Thank you for a good debate this far. I tried the best I could to spell out what I personally follow, in the opening of the first round. (I didn't do it perfectly though, since you thought that I valued happiness as supreme), I will try to do better next time to spell out all of my beliefs.
And yes, it's acceptable. I didn't think of them being brought up in that way, but the way you brought them up is completely okay.
sorry if my argument seems confusing. Arguments I~VI are what I consider necessary to question and bring out the true core values of utilitarianism. Some versions of utilitarianism only value happiness (as Mill argues implicitly). Not all utilitarian would consider lives infinitely valuable (in fact, that's the first time I've seen a utilitarian argue that). Not all utilitarian stick with Mill's idea that higher goods are emotional and lower goods are senses.
Next time, it would help to specify all examples and ideas of what utilitarian acts you advocate for, as well as higher/lower goods. ("Seek pleasurable" gives illusion that you're arguing for happiness, which I structured I~VI for.)
Also I know you said other moral systems will not be discussed, but I'm pretty sure you meant for Pro side's support. For utilitarianism to work, as it says we want the best results, we must consider other ideals that are followed. I hope that's acceptable.
had to cut out 1000 words from my 3rd round argument to be under the 10,000 word limit. LOL.
If you miraculously make it to round three, I will give you with the fundamental flaw of P1 and P2 you’ve wanted. Look forward to it. ;)
If VI looks confusing, I struggled to word it correctly. I think the most clarified way to conclude the study would be to say "utilitarian ideas lead to ruthlessness, so ironically most people are usually less utilitarian"
lol I see you take my username seriously...
I wanted to challenge "Everyone's pleasure (or good) counts equally" but I didn't have enough space... lol. Utilitarianism has so many flaws that 10k can't cover them all DX
I suspect it's gonna be a nail biting one. Good luck to both
Yes, this will be the challenge I have been waiting for. Win or loss, this debate is going to be my favorite I have had so far.
Yeah he's basically debating the UNDEFEATABLE!
Maybe this time ludolph will get the challenge he's been waiting for
Subscribing to this one.
Nah, you can take it. I'm good without it.
hope you didn't want to take this. Well, you can request him any time.