Instigator / Pro
MonkeyKing's avatar
3
MonkeyKing
1488
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#3625

The Utilitarian Stance is Inherently Contradictive and Impossible to be Intelligently Followed

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...

Ehyeh
Tags
Philosophy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Ehyeh's avatar
21
Ehyeh
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Description

Round 1: Accept
Round 2: Main Argument(No Rebuttal)
Round 3: Rebuttals only

Definitions:

Utilitarianism: the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

Contradict: In traditional logic, a contradiction occurs when a proposition conflicts either with itself or established fact.

Perfection: The video game Halo Reach developed by Bungie studios and released in 2010; the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.

Impossible: not able to occur, exist, or be done

Intelligently: in a knowledgeable and insightful way; cleverly.

Just clearing out the cobwebs on the ole brain and having a swing at something philosophical. Keep it polite and follow the rules. Failing to submit during a round or straying from the given structure is grounds for forfeiture. May the best win.

Round 1
MonkeyKing's avatar
MonkeyKing
Pro
#1
I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting and look forward to a lively debate.
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
Con
#2
Does utilitarianism contradict itself?
Pro has claimed that "The Utilitarian Stance is Inherently Contradictive and Impossible to be Intelligently Followed" to prove that this is the case, he must either:


  • prove there is a contradiction in the terms of what utilitarianism means
  • prove that everyone (since its inherently contradictive) who uses the utilitarian stance is somehow unknowingly acting as a hypocrite (not truly believing what they say they do).
To verify whether this is the case, PRO must know either one of the three: 

  • there is a contradiction in the terms of what utilitarianism means
  • that he has met everyone who holds the utilitarian stance in the world and (somehow) came to know they're all hypocrites
  •  PRO has found proof either to some form of universal subjective (which we all ought to follow) or that he knows some form of objective morality. I will leave it to PRO to let us all know which of these he will go with

Utilitarianisms contradict-less terms
At least within its terms, there is nothing inherently contradictive about utilitarianism (we value that which creates the most happiness for the greatest number of people). Because there is no contradiction within that, PRO cannot claim a priori that utilitarianism is internally contradictory. Therefore, we can reasonably discard that thesis (unless PRO proves otherwise).
-
Contradiction of those that use utilitarianism
I imagine this will be the argument PRO goes for, yet for pro to argue that utilitarianism is contradictory for all who believe and follow it (since its not contradictory in terms, this argument is necessitated), he must prove either through a synthetic a priori that morality is either objective, or that there is a moral universal subjective imperative within the human genome which ought not to be defied.
-
Since there is no contradiction within what utilitarianism means, this necessitates that if any contradiction exists, it exists not within utilitarianism but those who wield utilitarianism. If there was a gunman who opened fire at hospital staff and patients, if he were to be found a hypocrite, the hypocrisy wouldn't be within the gun (as it isn't a hypocrite) but the usage of the gun by the gunmen would be the hypocrite if any hypocrisy were to be found. In this same manner, since there is no internal contradiction to what utilitarianism means, PRO ought to argue that those who wield utilitarianism are hypocrites, not utilitarianism itself (an upwards battle).
-
PRO must have met all utilitarian's if he does not know what is objectively moral
In the case of the "deranged", it could well be said that even if someone has a wonky moral compass and believes in utilitarianism on all occasions (not something I'd personally recommend), given that there is no contradiction of terms in the definition of utilitarianism, there should be nothing contradictory about what this person believes if he's aware of the consequences of it. I will leave it to PRO to sort out these moral conundrums and to persuade us all that he has the keys to objective morality.



Round 2
MonkeyKing's avatar
MonkeyKing
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
Con
#4
MJOLNIR
It seems my debate partner has fled the scene after realising what he was up against. I didn't even need to use Mjolnir, all i  needed to do was brandish my power.  
Round 3
MonkeyKing's avatar
MonkeyKing
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
Con
#6
Thank you for the opportunity for this stimulating back and forth.