View Debate

Utilitarianism, which advocates for actions maximizing overall happiness, offers a justifiable moral framework by being grounded in logical evaluation of outcomes. It promotes the greatest good for the greatest number, ensuring decisions benefit society collectively. This framework is flexible, adaptable to varying situations and cultures, and focused on practical results rather than rigid principles. It accounts for long-term impacts and overall well-being, making it a logical approach to morality. By emphasizing consequences and collective welfare, utilitarianism provides a compelling and reasoned basis for ethical decision-making.

Yet, one person's view of the "greater good" could be seen in many different perspectives. There is a reason why different ideologies exist. Hitler claimed he was freeing the world, and would you justify him? Since greater good gives no concrete definition or action, it is simply unreliable to believe utilitarianism would be the "right" decision every time.

While it's true that interpretations of the "greater good" can vary, utilitarianism relies on a broader consensus and objective evaluation of outcomes, rather than subjective perspectives. Hitler's actions clearly resulted in immense suffering, failing utilitarian principles. Utilitarianism isn't about any individual's claim to morality but about measurable benefits and harms. It requires rigorous, collective assessment, not personal justifications, making it a more consistent and adaptable framework for ethical decisions compared to rigid ideologies that often lack such flexibility and empirical evaluation.

Your going to hold a vote with the entire world? The "rigorous, collective assessment" you speak of is impractical and unrealistic. Places in Asia may have a vastly different view than in the Americas. Thanos spoke with utilitarianism, and snapped his fingers to wipe out half the world. Did you not see the world grieving? In fact, I'd say that utilitarianism is in fact less emotional and more empirical than rigid ideologies. Rigid ideologies consider the individual's feelings many times more that utilitarianism. When making ethical decisions, is empathy not the very foremost thing to think about?

The debate featured SublimeMaelstrom592 advocating for utilitarianism as a justifiable moral framework and MarvelousWaterfall86 arguing against it. SublimeMaelstrom592's arguments emphasized the logical, outcome-based evaluation underpinning utilitarianism, highlighting its adaptability and focus on collective good. In the opening argument, SublimeMaelstrom592 presented utilitarianism as a flexible, practical approach that considers long-term impacts and promotes overall societal well-being. However, the argument lacked detailed examples and failed to fully address potential criticisms. MarvelousWaterfall86 rebutted effectively by questioning the subjective nature of the 'greater good' and pointing out historical misapplications like Hitler's actions. They argued that different perspectives and cultural values make a universal 'greater good' impractical, using emotionally resonant examples like Thanos from the Marvel universe to illustrate potential pitfalls. SublimeMaelstrom592 countered by clarifying that utilitarianism involves broader consensus rather than individual claims, but this response did not adequately address the impracticality of achieving such consensus globally. MarvelousWaterfall86 further strengthened their position by arguing that utilitarianism's reliance on empirical evaluation can neglect individual emotions, contrasting it with ideologies that prioritize empathy. Overall, MarvelousWaterfall86 provided more compelling arguments highlighting the impracticality and emotional shortcomings of utilitarianism, thus winning the debate.