The Principle of Utility

Well, originally, I thought I had accepted this debate as Con, since I strictly hold nihilistic views and would never approve of the concept of utilitarianism.

I'll debate this, nonetheless.

Good luck, phantom!

Throughout this debate, I will not take an absolutist stance on morality. I will take on the position that morality is a spectrum whose absolute extremes are strictly hypothetical. Therefore, no act can, in reality, be absolutely moral or immoral. However, the location of these acts on this spectrum is determined by the utilitarian aspect of the act, and the approximate net happiness that results.

Re: The problem of 'consequence verses motive'

Feeding a starving man is neither absolutely moral or absolutely immoral, since the moral ramifications of the act can vary. Why is it, then, considered a good act? Are people right in thinking that it is more moral than immoral to feed a starving man? Because if we view a huge number of acts of feeding a starving man, collectively, we see that they have a positive value of net-happiness. Sometimes a specific act of feeding a starving man can lead to a negative net-happiness, but more often, it leads to an overall positive value. Any action an infinite number of known and unknown potential consequences, but when the action, holistically, leads to a positive net-happiness, then it can be said that the action should be morally encouraged, since probability states that the action has a greater chance of being moral than immoral.

Every action has an infinite number of potential consequences. Saving a dying child can cause a genocide in the same way that the murder of a child can. However, murdering a child more often than not provokes anger and sadness (negative net-happiness) and, as a whole, leads to this net loss of happiness more directly. At the same time, saving a dying child more often than not provokes thankfulness and happiness (positive net-happiness) and, as a whole, leads to this net gain of happiness more directly. The sole goal of all of humanity is to find greater happiness, so an act that more often than not leads directly to a net gain in happiness is morally superior one that does not. Let us remember that if morality is a universal measure of goodness (relative to humanity), then how directly an action leads to happiness and how indirectly it leads to unhappiness is what determines the morality of an action (considering the probability of an action leading to such a result.) I would counter the Kantian "motive" idea, but the opponent attacks foundational aspects of it (e.g., moral duty) himself later in his arguments.

Re: The problem of non-responsibility

The action of asking your friend to walk down the rocks is more probable to have been immoral than not, since it directly led to unhappiness and most likely did not avoid greater unhappiness. It is more probable than not that this act led to a negative net-happiness as opposed to if the ice cream had still been in the friend's possession. What if the ice cream was poisoned, for example? Then the action would have most likely been moral... But the probability of keeping the ice cream leading to a consequence of greater unhappiness (based on the given specificity of the opponent's example) is slimmer than the probability of keeping the ice cream and deriving a greater net-happiness.

Whether or not one should be criticized for encouraging a friend to walk on the rocks (unintentionally leading one to drop the ice cream) is a different matter from whether or not it is moral. Indeed, killing a homeless man can avoid a result of even lower net-hapiness... But if we view the killings of homeless men, holistically, we see that the net-happiness to be lowered more directly through it, and it does not tend to lead directly to greater net-happiness. This is a matter of holistic analysis and probability; the morality of actions in their entirities should not be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Re: The problem of moral duty

I would not call it "obligation"; it is a "natural preference." Humans all share a natural preference to be happy rather than unhappy, so actions that tend to infringe on our own preference or on the preferences of others are against the interests of humanity, holistically and at an individual level. Happiness is the only absolute common good that humanity knows. However, since happiness is derived differently in different people, it must be viewed statistically. If eating cake, among X number of cases, leads to an average increase in net-happines, then it would be in one's interest to perform said action.


Re: The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculations

Indeed, there are an infinite number of potential consequences. However, we must consider how directly an action leads to a net-happiness gain and its chances of achieving a net-happiness loss. In the long run, even over one hundred years, killing ten people has a greater probability of leading to net-happiness loss than the saving of ten starving babies. Is that definitely the case? No. But we can assume that certain actions lead to a greater chance of lower net-happiness than other actions.

Indeed, exact calculations are not possible, considering the infinite number of potential consequences and the infinite potential span over which they can take place. However, if we restrain the consequences of two actions within a substantial duration of time, then we can see that one action has a greater probability of achieving net happiness than another.

Re: The problem of the subjectivity of values

If you choose to be stoic and place your value on being indifferent to the external influences of the world rather than acting another way, then you believe that you would gain more happiness through being stoic than you do through acting differently. Happiness is the “natural preference” of being. If one chooses to isolate oneself, then one seeks the net-happiness of isolation. And if one convinces oneself that such an act is against one’s interest, then one gains a greater net-happiness from working against one’s own interest, which is, indeed, counter-intuitive and self-deceptive. Whatever decision one makes out of those provided is chosen to derive maximum net-happiness.

And indeed, happiness is subjective. This further upholds my stance that morality is not absolute. What matters, however, is the consequence. In our society, saving an innocent life has a greater potential to directly lead to a surplus of net-happiness. In another (hypothetical) human society, ending an innocent life has a greater potential to directly lead to a surplus of net-happiness. For this reason, morality is not guided by a set of rules, since it would be arbitrary. Morality is instead guided by happiness, which is the ultimate goal of humanity.

I would reserve space for original arguments, but I believe that I expressed my points clearly enough in my refutations.

Thank you.

Sorry for my absence in the last round. Give the opponent conduct... But still judge everything else.

How does this debate have seven Facebook likes?

I posed counter-arguments in my refutations that not only counter my opponent's claims but also develop my own claims. These claims are the foundation for my arguments, and hence, I have met the Burden of Proof. If you do not believe this, read my refutations.

---

1. The opponent misconstrues my argument. The net-happiness of any action, holistically, is either positive and negative; therefore, an action, holistically, can be described as moral or immoral. The Principle of Utilitarianism is broad and does not pertain to case-by-case bases of actions. Hence, my stance is germane to the matter at hand and represents the Principle of Utilitarianism well.

Indeed, as the opponent says, the Principle of Utilitarianism does state that "any action that increases happiness is morally good (and vice versa.)" If we go by a case-by-case basis, then we can take a case in which a specific act of giving food to a starving man leads to positive net-happiness; this would be morally good. If we view the action holistically, however, how do we determine the morality of it? You take the collective net-happiness, and that determines whether or not it is moral.

Motives are arbitrary. One person can save a dying child in good faith; another person can kill a healthy child in good faith. If a motive that is moral (or good) is one that intends the results of an action to be good, then the entire theory is founded on a completely subjective value. One could argue that "good" is, to an extent, objective and form a list of "rules," but such a list will have exceptions and will naturally be too broad. Eventually any list of such a nature would come down to "happiness," the foundation of utilitarianism.

2. In regards to the act of killing a homeless man, the opponent states, "...no-one [sic] would look favorably on the killer, even if they knew his actions lead to greater consequences." This is, of course, illogical for two reasons.

The first is that "killing a homeless man" is a broad statement; some may, in fact, be in favor of killing a homeless necropedophile, for instance. In fact, many people are in favor of the death penalty. Why is killing considered moral in some contexts and not in others? Each context has a different place on the utilitarian spectrum, and therefore, the morality of the act varies.

The second is that if it is later determined that, for example, the homeless man had created a terroristic plot to destroy California, then the negative net-happiness that was avoided makes it more feasible that the initial act, though directly leading to assumptions of immorality, was in fact, moral, since a greater negative was avoided, most likely.

The opponent keeps emphasizes actions on a case-by-case basis. We are judging the means of determing the moral value of actions, holistically. Killing the homeless man is, without any contextual details, immoral, all in all. If a random homeless man were killed, there is a greater chance that the net-happiness would be lower than it would have been if he were not. We can determine, hence, through a probabilistic means, that killing a homeless man (without further context) is immoral, all in all.

The opponent is simply misrepresenting the argument that is being posed. Indeed, if the ice cream had been poisoned, then it would have been a moral act. Let us remember that we are dealing with the action of "asking a friend to walk with you on the rocks after he has bought ice cream." This is all of the context that we are provided with. Within this context, the ice cream, in a majority of cases, would not be poisoned. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the friend would fall under the given circumstances (if we took this action holistically, all other contextual circumstances aside.) Therefore, all in all, the action does not lead to lower net-happiness than the absence of the action.

3. The action: "Slapping someone in the face after they slapped you."

The hypothetical:
Person A slaps Person B in the face. Resulting net-happiness: A: +1, B: -1
Person B slaps Person A in the face back. Resulting net-happiness: A: -1 B: +1

Essentially, in this hypothetical, the action is a means of achieving the positive end of the net-happiness. Net-happiness, within a given time, always consists of positive and negative values that accumulate into a final value. At an individual level, a person desires to keep net-happiness the same or even greater, while acquiring the positive end of it.

Moreover, there is a disparity between perceived resulting net-happiness and actual resulting net-happiness. Someone who punches someone believes that the pain of the person is justified by the positive net-happiness that is derived from it (e.g., satisfaction derived from revenge) on their end.

4. Not all utilitarianism is founded on absolutism; my opponent fails to acknowledge this in this arguments. We have to place an action on a spectrum, because even the greatest proponent of utilitaranism would acknowledge that one morally good thing can be superior to another morally good thing, and vice versa.

Now, to address the question of "How on earth are we to calculate probabilities if there is an infinite number of potential outcomes anyway?" We have to restrain the duration of time based on which an action is judged. I ask the opponent, "How can we determine the exact odds of getting heads in a hypothetical coin flip if there is an infinite number of times one can flip a coin?" Within a given period of time, though extremes would occur on both sides of the moral spectrum (in the coin analogy, this would mean that we would get the same side a large number of times, though this would be better represented in a different analogy with more possibilities), the action slowly approaches a specific net-happiness value.

5. Actually, my opponent is utterly wrong when referring to the Stoic philosophy. Stoicism was partly founded on a philosophy of achieving happiness. Seneca and Epictetus emphasized the doctrines that "the sage is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness." [1] In other words, Stoics sought happiness through apathy, an absence of disturbance. [2] And an "absence of pain," derived from apathy (along with the satisfaction that is derived from it) surely fits the given definition.

If one seeks isolation, it DOES mean that the person perceives this isolation to be a means of achieving a greater net-happiness than through other means. This is indisputable. Does an action necessarily lead to one's greater happiness? No. But perceived resulting greater happiness is what is used to make day-to-day decisions.

6. I. Harming your own body usually leads to lower net-happiness than the absence of performing such an act, and therefore, it is immoral. And again, perceived resulting net-happiness differs from actual resulting net-happiness. If I were to cut myself with the expectation that it would lead to greater net-happiness than if I didn't, that does not mean that such will be the case. Furthermore, the opponent uses words like "permissable" and "obligation." Utilitarian morality is just a natural preference for the greatest net-happiness; there is no obligation that must be met.

II. In a given case in which you must hurt or kill yourself to spare other people, the perceived net-happiness result is what determines whether or not you do it... And the actual net-happiness result is derived from the consequences of such an action. Due to the broadness of the action and the lack of context, I am not sure, offhand, whether such an action is moral or immoral, holistically, but I am assuming that it is close to neutral, depending on the proportion of loss of life and sparing of life.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.bilkent.edu.tr...