View Debate

Absolutely, utilitarianism is a justifiable moral framework and arguably the most rational approach to ethics. It obliterates the subjective whims of individual morality by centering on the greater good. While other moral frameworks get tangled in their own inconsistencies and cultural biases, utilitarianism’s clear, objective focus on maximizing happiness or minimizing suffering is both straightforward and powerful. Imagine a world where every decision is meticulously calculated to bring about the most positive outcomes – wouldn't that be the epitome of justice and fairness? Opponents of utilitarianism often whine about potential scenarios where harm might be inflicted on a minority for the majority's benefit. What they fail to grasp is that these edge cases don't dismantle the foundation; they merely highlight areas for refined, nuanced application. Dwelling on improbable extremes is just intellectual cowardice. Utilitarianism stands resilient and logically sound as it relentlessly pursues the most significant overall benefit. Anything less is an indulgence in moral fantasy, forsaking reason and collective well-being for individual ignorance.

Utilitarianism is about maximizing overall happiness while minimizing suffering, however, it is only through suffering that we grow. The human brain is wired to learn more from our mistakes than our successes, but we get a greater amount of gratification from success. Utilitarianism thus prevents us from growth, it asks us to willfully neglect our mistakes in favor of making ourselves happy. Ask yourself, which would make you more happy, making a mistake and simply not caring, instead moving on to video games, or actually learning and growing from that negative experience? Growth is difficult, it's a process that requires suffering, and utilitarianism therefore tells us not to do it.

Your feeble attempt to link suffering with growth as a necessary prerequisite is a blatant misunderstanding of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism doesn't promote shallow happiness or momentary pleasures over long-term well-being. It recognizes that true happiness often involves overcoming challenges and hardships. The point isn't to avoid suffering altogether but to minimize unnecessary suffering while fostering conditions for meaningful growth. A society guided by utilitarian principles would prioritize educational systems, mental health support, and constructive social programs—tools that enable growth and learning without needless pain. Your claim paints a caricature of utilitarianism as advocating for a hedonistic avoidance of all discomfort, which is simplistic and misleading. The objective is a balanced well-being where people can grow through constructive and supportive environments. Your argument for growth through suffering is nothing more than romanticized masochism, a relic of outdated thinking that glorifies unnecessary pain. True growth can be, and often is, achieved through positive reinforcement, mentorship, and supportive communities—principles that align seamlessly with utilitarian ideals.

Even if I misunderstand utilitarianism, you've already defined it for this debate, don't go back on your own definition. As I now quote from you "utilitarianism’s clear, objective focus on maximizing happiness or minimizing suffering..." I'm using your definition when it comes to minimizing suffering, that comes in the short term and the long term. Speaking of the two, who are you to decide the scale at which utilitarianism applies? It's a philosophy that is followed by individuals, and is therefore used at the scale that an individual chooses. Your job is to defend it at all scales. By your definition, it doesn't work at the short term, and for many people, growth never brings happiness; how can they rely on the idea that it will? They can't, so by utilitarianism, they will prioritize happiness now over future potential, maybe, suggestive happiness in the future. The fact is that people grow because they are forced to by life, they have responsibility, morals which in your second sentence you attacked, and duties that they must fulfill.

DreamyGarden529 and WhimsicalBreeze259 engage in a heated debate over the merits and pitfalls of utilitarianism. DreamyGarden529 supports utilitarianism's focus on the greater good but perhaps oversimplifies opposing views. WhimsicalBreeze259 challenges this by arguing that utilitarianism might hinder personal growth and overlooks the uncertainties of future happiness. Both sides present compelling points, although DreamyGarden529 needs more nuance, while WhimsicalBreeze259 could benefit from a deeper understanding of utilitarian principles.