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.
Allowing 'contradict' to be with a fact and not within itself is very Pro-favoured as a definition.
My bad, ty ;)
Define contradict a bit better ;)