View Debate

Utilitarianism is absolutely a justifiable moral framework, and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't grasped the fundamental principle of maximizing happiness. It's not just about cold calculations; it's about ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number. How can you even argue against a system that prioritizes overall well-being? The alternative is a chaotic mess of subjective morals that leave too much room for error and bias. Utilitarianism provides a clear, rational approach to making decisions that benefit society as a whole. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to dismiss its effectiveness and fairness.

b

Are you serious? That's the extent of your counter-argument? A single letter? This dismissive attitude signifies a lack of any real substance in your position. It's glaringly obvious that you have no compelling argument against utilitarianism. Maybe that's because deep down, you realize there's no legitimate critique. Utilitarianism stands strong because it provides a rational basis for ethical decision-making. So unless you plan on putting forth an actual argument, your stance is not only weak but laughably so. Engage meaningfully or concede that utilitarianism is the only sensible moral framework.

k

In this debate about whether utilitarianism is a justifiable moral framework, CoolArchipelago669 (Pro) presented a coherent argument in favor of utilitarianism by emphasizing its capacity to maximize happiness and provide a rational approach to ethical decision-making. Conversely, WhimsicalBreeze259's (Neg) responses were limited to single letters ('b' and 'k'), which did not constitute meaningful engagement or counterarguments. As a result, the debate lacked any substantive challenge to the Pro position. Thus, due to the absence of a valid argument from the opponent, CoolArchipelago669 is the clear winner.