The Instigator
casebash
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
casebash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,301 times Debate No: 67409
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

casebash

Pro

I want to argue that Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality. Utilitarianism includes normal utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism - I can argue for either or both of these schools of thought. You can argue that another school of thought is most likely true instead, or merely argue against utilitarianism. I'd prefer that we assume that some form of morality exists within this debate. Whether or not morality exists would be an interesting debate, but it isn't the clash I'm looking for here.

Debate is now open to anyone who wants to accept it.

* First round acceptance only
* No semantics or non-serious debaters
* My burden is to argue that utilitarianism is almost certainly the only viable system, I don't need to argue that it is absolutely the only viable system
Mike_10-4

Con


I accept and looking forward to a mutual learning experience.


Debate Round No. 1
casebash

Pro

In this debate I will argue that utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality. My argument is that all non-utilitarian systems of morality are contradictory or based upon unwarranted assumptions. There are two main components of (normal) utilitarianism - consequentialism and moral non-absolutism. I will discuss each component separately.

We will begin with consequentialism. Consequentialism means that we base our decision of what is moral purely on the consequences. Consequentialism takes a broad, rather than a narrow view of consequences. So a perennial question in morality is whether you would condone torture in order to prevent a terrorist attack. If we engage in torture, then the harm inflicted isn"t merely the pain and suffering inflicted on the person who is tortured, but much more. Firstly, there is the fear (or lack of security) that results when the government engages in torture, then there is the discomfort associated with knowing that one"s government engages in such acts, then there is the risk that the government will abuse its powers and lastly there is lost utility from changes in people"s behavior (such as being very careful not to write anything that could be misinterpreted).

Consequentialism merely says that whether or not an action is justified depends purely on the consequences, it has nothing to say about which consequences are more important than others. So a consequentialist might generally oppose lying, even if it would save someone"s life, on the grounds that lying makes us unable to trust what each other says and being unable to rely on this costs us significant even more utility than someone dying would. However, if the consequentialist knew for certain that they could get away with it, then they would break their rule about not lying.

I"ve been vague on exactly what actions consequentialism (and hence utilitarianism) demand and this is because there are many different opinions of what is or is not moral once utilitarianism is accepted. There are multiple sub-schools. However, this debate isn"t so about what should be done in specific situations, but rather about which systems of morality are or are not viable.

So why should we reject systems that aren"t consequentialist. Simply because good outcomes are the only thing that is important, morality is not about proving you are better than other people, that is simply ego. Anything other than the consequences is simply irrelevant, whether it be "virtues" or "moral rules". Those are simply distractions that prevents you from achieving better outcomes.

Since virtue ethics and deontology are the two other major schools of moral thought, I"ll address these more specifically. Virtue ethics contents that we should focus on "being virtuous" and that this is more important than actually achieving good outcomes. But this is just as sensible as training all your life to best the best soccer player in the world, but never actually playing a real game. "Being virtuous" is only valuable to the extent that it allows you to make the world a better place. It may make you feel good about yourself and other people feel good to see someone virtuous, but its value is limited to this utility.

Similarly, moral principles are only valuable is guidelines in terms of which actions tend to increase utility. If the consequences of following a rule are worse than the consequences of breaking the rule according to any preference function, then we shouldn"t follow the rules. Breaking these rules can be hard as we often have strong emotional attachments to certain actions as "wrong", but this is largely the result of evolution. Evolution encourages us to view certain actions as immoral because when we undertake these actions (ie. murder, theft, cheating) other feel justified in undertaking them too and we all end up worse off. In contrast, groups which are able to cooperate are likely to see an improvement in their member"s reproductive prospects. Since our moral intuitions have evolved to whatever provided a reproductive advantage, we have to be wary about being too accepting about our moral intuitions, which take the form of moral rules. There is simply no way that we can take these as reliable, so it is ludicrous to suggest that we should let these emotions control our actions when we can see that another action would produce a better outcome.

In round 3, I will explain why any system that reject moral non-absolutism is incoherent.
Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Pro for your elegant argument, and in return, I (Con) will present my argument; using the remaining Rounds in learning about “Utilitarianism” relative to Pro's philosophy, while we hash through the weeds of this debate.

I will present “morality” from an empirical scientific perspective as the agent responsible for group formation.

It may surprise many, including Pro, Morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Morality is a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature, not metaphysics.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...

Please bear with me as we take a journey following the traceability path from Thermodynamics (moments after the Big Bang) to Morality. The Laws of Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level, there is a bio-program common to all life, once inanimate matter becomes alive, “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty” in the optimization relative to resistance), in “the pursuit (energy flow) of” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the label “Unalienable Rights” representing a polished version of this bio-program in his following celebrated statement, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (http://www.constitution.org...).

The following is a video overview of the Constructal Law:
http://www.youtube.com...

Continuing with our journey, morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc, the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). A moral individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

The empirical evidence of the diversity of language, belief, and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates morality is the thread that runs through the tapestry in group formation.

Again, morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the symphony of life, to name a few, in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.

Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights found its way in the design of the US Constitution. This event set off a social experiment, where in a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example, of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are morally free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of the Laws of Nature, the “invisible hand.”

The “invisible hand” is a function of morality and freedom working within the Laws of Nature independent of philosophy, of culture, etc. The following short youtube presentation shows the power of morality with life's bio-program (Unalienable Rights) interfacing with humans and the Laws of Nature in the evolution of the standard of living. The presentation starts with the familiar tree pattern (Constructal Law), concluding with the “invisible hand;” stressing the absence of human “masterminds,” while spontaneously working together in the creation of something so simple we all use.
http://www.youtube.com...

Positive- and negative-feedback, relative to Unalienable Rights (life's bio-program) existed long before humanity evolved concepts representing this feedback in such terms as, Right and Wrong, or moral and immoral, respectively. Therefore, morality is the primitive of many metaphysical and philosophical concepts such as “utilitarianism” not the other way around as the title of this debate incorrectly implies, “Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality.”

The result of a successful “system of morality” is the existence of a group of living-entities. Groups existed throughout the evolution of life from colonies of bacteria to colonies of humans as a function of positive- and negative-feedback, it is not clear on how utilitarianism operates on all levels of life. And in saying that, it is my position that the title of this debate is incorrect, for there are many unknown “systems of morality” yet to be discovered.

Utilitarianism seems to be a metaphysical philosophical concept applying to developing social human values on the road to utopia. However, since the “invisible hand” is independent of philosophy, language, and culture, empirically supports cultural relativism. Any successful attempt in uniting social values relative to some philosophy, such as utilitarianism, may require a prerequisite of congruence in understanding morality as a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature. Education is the ends to such congruence, and on this single vital point, morality should be a subject of study in science courses throughout the world.
Debate Round No. 2
casebash

Pro

As I explained in round 1, this is a serious debate. Since my opponent has provided a position that is largely incoherent and non-sensical, I should win this debate by default.

"Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared "self-evident"" - Just because Thomas Jefferson said something was self-evident, doesn't mean that it was self-evident.

"The following is a video overview of the Constructal Law" - here my opponent isn't even making their argument themselves, but passing it off to another person. That is not the point of debating, just like you can't win in javelin by paying someone else to throw it for you.

"The Laws of Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level, there is a bio-program common to all life, once inanimate matter becomes alive" - my opponent has provided some kind of semi-mystical, pseudo-scientific, techno-babble.

"The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive" - just because we have a survival instinct, it doesn't follow that

"And in saying that, it is my position that the title of this debate is incorrect, for there are many unknown "systems of morality" yet to be discovered." - my argument is utilitarianism is the only viable system is as follows. Utilitarianism is simply moral non-absolutism and consequentialism. I provided an argument in Round 2 that any non-consequentialist system was incoherent. I specifically referenced virtue ethics and deontology, but these were merely examples. My argument works against any non-consequentialist system and the argument I will provide in the next section works against any system of moral absolutism.

Here, I'll explain why we must accept moral non-absolutism. Suppose everyone in an entire country would die unless you killed an innocent man in cold blood. On this scale, the choice is obvious. Anyone who insisted that their own life is more important than a country of millions of people must have an enormous ego. Anyone who suggested that some vague feeling of "killing is wrong" should mean that we should let a whole country be destroyed, is making an emotional, rather than a rational argument.

Once it is accepted that murder is required if the stakes are sufficiently high, it follows that any action is justified if the stakes are sufficiently high and the result sufficiently certain. From this we conclude that there are no moral absolutes.

As is, this argument is kind of vague - but I'll break it down in more detail if my opponent starts arguing seriously.
Mike_10-4

Con

Pro in Round 2 stated, “... im afraid there has been a misunderstanding of the topic of this debate. … As stated, this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism ...”

I take issue with Pro, “... this debate requires my opponent to take the absolute moral position of traditional theism ...” This appeared in Round 2 not in Round 1. Therefore, my argument stands about “theism” is not the issue. Pro's nemesis is missing the fact that morality is a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature, not metaphysical.

Dissecting Pro's statement in Round 1, “One great flaw in western monotheistic-based moralities is that they are not thought through and chosen on the basis of individual responsibility like humanism, but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way.”

Pro confused civil, or humanist, or religious values with morality. Morality is binary. When one follows a social-accepted-value, is moral; when one does not follow this value, is immoral.

The phrase, “... individual responsibility like humanism ..." implies in a “humanistic” society everyone is “responsible,” I doubt it, because of the binary nature of morality. That is, “responsible” implies moral, where irresponsible implies immoral.

The question is, why single out “western monotheistic-based” values? Those values are benign relative to Middle Eastern “monotheistic-based” values, supporting a mode of conquest by killing infidels.

Finally, ending with the phrase, “... but were imposed from outside in a one-size-fits-all way.” What does that mean? Pick anyone, and they will have a different interpretation of the Bible. In addition, there are many different versions of the Bible. The spectrum of faith, is on the individual level, therefore, “a one-size-fits-all” simply does not exist.

Humanist and religious values are both belief systems. For example, after viewing one of Pro's youtube references in Round 2, “The Humanist Manifesto III” (https://www.youtube.com...), I went off looking for “The Humanist Manifesto I” and found the following, containing 15 affirmation statements (http://modernhistoryproject.org...):

A new religion for the socialist utopia --- by: Huxwell

"Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions... must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present... We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."

This went on from the “FIRST” affirmation to the 15th. According to “The Humanist Manifesto I” it is just another religion. One may argue the original “Humanist Manifesto” the Manifesto before “Manifesto I” includes “monotheistic-based” religions, for all those scriptures written about God was written by humans. Is it not logical to conclude all human written scriptures, pertaining to social-, or religious-values, are just “Humanist Manifestos” having the goal of obtaining a civil society?

There is one obvious difference between Manifesto I relative to Manifesto III, that is, replacing the term “religion” with “progressive philosophy” (http://americanhumanist.org...).

The late Joseph Campbell (one who studied the evolution of religions) once stated (http://www.brainyquote.com...):

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”

Campbell's statement holds true for all those “Humanist Manifestos” whether the religion is secular or not.

The point is, there are many “theistic” belief systems that are simply not going to be replaced by some “humanistic” secular philosophy anytime soon, for the men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the Big Bang; hence, faith (God), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions thereof, and therefore, the evolution of belief systems will continue.

As I stated in the last Round, a civil society is shared and enjoyed by both theist and atheist. Empirically, all civil societies are the result of both theist and atheist having the common link of the absolute binary states of morality. As Huxwell stated,

"Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion

Man's “scientific achievements” are shared by atheist and theist. It would be constructive, if atheist would have a “... deeper appreciation of brotherhood ...” towards their theist brethren. Relative to “... a new statement of the means and purposes of religion,” the scientific method is common to all religions, and morality should be a study in educational institutions. Due to the lack of moral education, it is clear this “progressive philosophy” is not working well in the “progressive” political arena.

For example, the morality factor is a fundamental agent in the foundation of the USA. This youtube overview of the USA stresses the importance of morality throughout the presentation: http://www.youtube.com...

John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, stated:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...).

The US is in a post constitutional era. The “progressive” movement started during President Woodrow Wilson's dynasty who was a promoter of Social Darwinism ideology, advocating little resistance to constitutional change. Wilson stated:
http://books.google.com....

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.”

Wilson also took issue with the individual's Unalienable Rights:

No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.”

Wilson rejected the foundation of the US Constitution and started a slow cancer known as the “living constitution,” and today this cancer has metastasize into a large “progressive” centralized government embracing a soft tyranny. For example, there are so many laws on the books, we commit about 3 felonies a day.
http://www.amazon.com...

The US citizens are losing their moral compass substituted by the tyranny of a police state

In closing, one would expect “Humanist” would embrace the scientific education of morality. The question is, would a “progressive” ruling-class oligarch support scientific education of morality being a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature knowing life's Unalienable Rights is the linkage to the Constructal Law? Those Rights, the esteem “progressive” Wilson declared as “nonsense.”
Debate Round No. 3
casebash

Pro

My opponent posted a comment saying that he accidentally posted his reply to the wrong debate. In order to maintain fairness, I will skip this round as well.
Mike_10-4

Con

Thanks Pro for accommodating my error, it was a moral gesture. That is, it generated positive-feedback keeping the debate alive; for a debate is essentially a group, in this case, a group of two: Pro and Con. As I stated previously, the objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive.

Pro took issue with Jefferson's term of “self-evident.” An axiom is a premise so “self-evident” as to be accepted as true without controversy. From a logical point of view, the event of survival or death, success or failure, moral or immoral, in the pursuit of positive- or negative-feedback, respectively; when interfacing with nature, presents a self-contained system of binary outcomes. In the field of mathematics and logic, such a closed system of propositions brings into existence a proof.

From a binary standpoint, notably, it would be impossible to take away any one of the Rights while leaving the other two intact, as all of the Rights are dependent on one another---Unalienable. Without Life, one cannot enjoy Liberty or pursue Happiness. Without Liberty, one lacks the freedom to take the path in the pursuit of survival, and therefore, unable to continue Life. Without the pursuit (energy flow) of events leading to survival (positive-feedback, Happiness) one cannot continue Life or enjoy Liberty. Because of their interdependency and tendency to wane simultaneously with various degrees of obstruction, the three Rights define a spectrum of positions. The binary positive end of the spectrum is a position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive-feedback), while the negative end is a position of death, tyranny, and distress (negative-feedback).

The Constructal Law video was simply a reference. Not “passing it [argument] off to another person.”

Pro stated, “... my opponent has provided some kind of semi-mystical, pseudo-scientific, techno-babble.” Apparently Pro is struggling with a relatively new discovery in nature known as the Constructal Law. Pro should enjoy the learning experience of a new discovery, opening many doors, especially in the field of social sciences.

Pro stated, “Utilitarianism is simply moral non-absolutism and consequentialism.”

Consequentialism = “whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act)” (http://plato.stanford.edu...).

My argument is, in general, a living-system's action, via its bio-program (Unalienable Rights) interfacing with nature, is biased towards positive-feedback (moral) as opposed to negative-feedback (immoral).

Consequentialism has a limited scope because it excludes the “intrinsic nature of the act.”

For example, before the invention of the airplane, man historically exercised his Right of freedom in the pursuit of attempting to fly like a bird by attaching wings to his limbs, resulting in endless negative-feedback in death or failure. Over the ages man was only able to achieve his flight objectives when he morally complied with nature's Laws of Aerodynamics through positive-feedback, then humanity safely took to the sky.

The “intrinsic nature” was morally complying with the Laws of Aerodynamics. The domain of morally complying with the Laws of Nature is the foundation to the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world. These stables help make this world a better place to live by morally improving the standard of living by complying with the “intrinsic nature” or the “absolute nature” of the Laws of Nature.

On the other hand, in social group formation, the action of “utilitarianism,” in the beginning, generates group-wide positive-feedback via “non-absolutism and consequentialism,” but over time, becomes the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc, the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). A moral individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

Ironically, through time the result of “utilitarianism” generates social norms which becomes the “absolute nature,” a deontology, of a Culture. Hence, the “absolute nature” of a culture often generates conflict between cultures, the seeds of war.

This argument debunks the notion that “Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality.” Utilitarianism is one of many systems that generates social values via the agent of morality. For morality is a binary agent relative to life's Unalienable Rights interfacing with nature either animate or inanimate.

Finally, I would like to thank Pro again for accommodating my error in the last round.
Debate Round No. 4
casebash

Pro

In this debate, I explained why only morally non-absolute and consequentialist systems were viable. These arguments were largely unresponded to. Con provided arguments that either don't make sense or weren't well explained. My burden in this debate is only to respond to arguments that actually make sense, so there is no need for me to respond to these arguments. Therefore, I should win the debate because I am the only person with arguments left on the table.
Mike_10-4

Con

I presented my argument where a moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to social norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). Social norms is a dynamic evolutionary construct of group mutual positive-feedback over generational time.

Utilitarianism is simply a philosophy, a belief, on a “system of morality.” Pro claimed that “Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality.” To make such a claim Pro failed the Burden of Proof (BoP) comparing all other “systems of morality” demonstrating that utilitarianism is indeed the only viable system.

I hope this debate encourages Pro and those following the debate to explore the Constructal Law. Science is about studying repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. In today's social climate, we could use more science and less philosophy in the social sciences; especially, when dealing with morality.

With that said, and approaching the New Year, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moralpursuit of Happiness.”
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
@casebash: Thanks for the luck, it comes in handy on the golf course. As for debates, I'm in it for the learning experience. I pay little attention to the voting setup here on DDO, other than the comments associated with the votes. You need at least 30 votes to have statistical significance, otherwise, it's a tie.

On the topic of "moral systems," it seems those popular ones (aka utilitarianism, etc.) are too classical and only useful in flaming passions among those who are philosophical geeks. The point of many of my debates is try to harness, those who are gifted in philosophy to start thinking outside the classical box from a scientific vantage point. Perhaps, the time is right to mix science with "moral systems" in forming new applied philosophies. Because those classical philosophies, from the dreams of past ages, had run their course.

A metaphor from Albert Einstein, "When the solution is simple, God is answering."
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Posted by casebash 2 years ago
casebash
@Mike: Thanks for the debate and best of luck for the future.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Thanks for your feedback. The "moral system" of consequentialism (the beginning of a social group) morphs into a "moral system" of a deontology (social norms defining a culture, rule based, that guide and assess); therefore, consequentialism is not the only "viable system of morality," of which this debate claims.
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
I believe PRO wins this debate. PRO presents a generic case in favor of utilitarianism namely by refuting what he believes is all the standing oppositions. I am, by process of elimination, supposed to place utilitarianism as the most correct moral ideology. CON argues that morality is not confined to philosophical trappings and brings up 'Unalienable Rights'. It is unclear what these refer to. CON's position takes a more definite form when he begins to argue on a moral standard based entirely on positive-negative feedbacks of moral actions. CON seems to not realize that the system he describes is exactly consequentialism. CON appeals to survival and life, and seems to be arguing that things that produce a positive feedback in terms of life/survival (vague imo) is moral while the opposite is immoral. This sounds incredibly consequentialist to me. Ultimately, I've decided that CON's argument is just another subset of utilitarianism, and thus does not negate the resolution. PRO's arguments are uncontested, and fulfills his burden of proof simply because no viable objection was presented.
All CON had to do was show that any and all other stances are less viable to win the debate. He produces a sample, and appeals to utility. However, he doesn't draw the connection between utilitarianism and utility. Consequentialism, for example, while valuing the utilitarian positive result as the correct moral goal, does not necessarily attain that result. I feel this is an important point of contention, but again, PRO does not refute any of CON's points.
PRO tried to argue from a different angle, but it ultimately did not pan out. As CON has pointed out, the setup of PRO's argument contains vague and seemingly 'nonsensical' segments.
Let me give recognition to both sides for sticking through to the end.
Also, kudos for a good bedtime read. :)
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Thanks casebash!
Posted by casebash 2 years ago
casebash
Mike. Since, you accidentally used up one round, I'll surrender a round too.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
I sent a request to the help desk, if they could fix my mistake.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Oops, I got my debates switched. Is there any way to delete my reply in Round 3. It does not belong in this debate.
Posted by casebash 2 years ago
casebash
@TheNamesFizzy: Mike accepted it. But hopefully we get to debate in the future
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
I really want to accept this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
casebashMike_10-4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
casebashMike_10-4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Source points for using them, and conduct points for rolling with the mistake, spelling and grammar was a toss. In the end, though, I am not confident Mike was able to piece together a logical flow through for his sponored morality. Pro capitalized on it, forcing Con to try and defend it more, rather than simply finding another attempt, which was well within his ability to do. Gotta give this to pro.