The categorical imperative vs. the principle of utility

Intrinsic goodCon, in her argument for the intrinsic goodness of happiness, mistakes someone wanting something for something actually being good. A drug addict wants heroin but why should that mean that heroin is good? Con asks why people want to be happy. The answer is that it feels good, it's pleasurable. However, my opponent still has not provided a link between something feeling good and that same thing actually being good. The two are not synonymous. I will not comment for or against my opponent's conclusion though that if an intrinsic good be found, that actions taken to bring that would be instrumental goods for the necessary premise for making that conclusion (that happiness is an intrinsic good) has not been proven.ConsequencesAs the consequences argument rests on the intrinsic good argument as a necessary requisite, disproving it will disprove the consequences argument. As I have done this, no further comment is necessary on this argument.The FF supports the PUOn my opponent's example of a man pondering whether to take a high risk job, she again misinterprets the first formulation. My opponent argues that Kantianism would not support this action and therefore cannot be sufficient as a moral rule since in some circumstances, it could be beneficial. However, even as my opponent's initial reasoning is faulty, it also does not correctly represent the first formulation. So even if Kantianism was correctly represented, my opponent's conclusion would not follow.Begging the questionMy opponent basically argues that the first formulation does not conform to consequentialism, therefore it must be false. My opponent argues that there are beneficial arguments which are not universalizable, therefore the first formulation is false and insufficient. However, this argument begs the question for it first assumes the validity of utilitarianism as a premise in showing why Kantianism must be false, thus proving utilitarianism as superior.Cultivation of skillsBut on to my opponent's representation of the first formulation, it does not correctly represent the conclusion which adherence to the first formulation would bring. Cultivating one's skills was argued by Kant to be an imperfect duty on one's part. It wasn't a perfect duty since universalizing a world in which no one cultivated their skills was at least conceptually possible. However, it resulted in a contradiction in will if universalized.The reasoning being that no one is able to provide for every single one of their needs, no one is completely self sufficient in the world. This means that one's being rests on the ability of other people to provide for these needs i.e. making food (a cook at a restaurant), building a house (a construction worker), etc. From this it follows that willing that no one would cultivate their skills or natural talents would result in willing that no one would cultivate the skills necessary for one's own well being which is a contradiction in one's will. So even if my opponent's initial reasoning didn't beg the question, it would not be a sound criticism of the first formulation.Circular reasoning of the FFMy opponent argues that I am being inconsistent in my application of reasoning to the negative and affirmative cases respectively. Universal lying and the ability to discern the truthMy opponent argues that even in a world of lying, one could still apply logic to determine the truth value of a proposition. I completely and utterly agree with this proposition and I actually used it to show that in a world of only lying, everyone would not necessarily believe any ridiculous thing that anyone said since the faculties of logic are presumably still available. My opponent argues though that this fact proves that in a world of lying, people would still be able to determine what is really the truth. Arguing this, I believe my opponent has misunderstood my initial argument. I argued that since a framework of general truth telling is necessary for someone to believe a lie, everyone lying would undermine the credibility if most if not all lies, meaning that to lie would be to implicitly will that no one would believe that lie. This results in a contradiction of will and thus the FF condemns it. Nowhere in my argument did I argue that no one would know whether or not someone was telling the truth in a world where everyone lies at all times.Premise 1 and conclusionMy opponent argues that since my premise 2 is flawed, the rest of my argument fails. I will not comment further on this argument since the argument concerning the soundness of my premise 2 is still ongoing. My premise 2 covers the denial of universalization as a necessary contradiction. ConclusionMy opponent's supposed refuting example of a person who would benefit more from taking a risky job as against the FF has been shown to be faulty on two counts. First, it relies on an implicit assumption of the validity of utilitarianism as a premise for the conclusion of the validity of utilitarianism, therefore it employs circular reasoning. Second, it ignores the fact that the FF supports the cultivation of one's skills as an imperfect duty. My opponent has also only shown happiness to be desired, not that it is intrinsically good. Nor has my opponent shown the link between someone wanting something and that thing necessarily being good for them. Since my opponent could not show the intrinsic goodness of happiness, she has provided no reason to believe that acting so as to bring happiness is moral.