Resolved: This house prefers utilitarianism.

The opposition has chosen Kant to stand against Utilitarianism and has twisted about three scenarios for you where Kant seems to be preferable (though it is not so), yet he curiously left my main arguments untouched. My personal style is to first remind you of my arguments, present my new argument, defend any rebuttals the offense made, and then break down the offense's arguments. After defining utilitarianism for you, I then showed that utilitarianism is adaptable and focused. Even though the opposition did not directly refute my arguments, I can still compare them to Kant. My first argument was that utilitarianism is adaptable. Deontology's (Kant's philosophy) greatest weakness is its inability to adapt. Kant did not believe in any kind of moral gray area or subjective morality. Kant believed that what was right was right and what was wrong was wrong universally. Clearly in terms of adaptability utilitarianism is the winner. My second argument was that utilitarianism is focused, focused on what is really important to be specific. This is another clear win for utilitarianism. Did you know that Kant believed that everyone was their own moral agent? That means that you are only responsible for your own actions, not the actions of others. This means that if a bad man asks you for information that could harm others, you should tell the truth " in fact you should always tell the truth " because you are responsible for your own morality and the bad man is responsible for his. This is ridiculous. Deontology would have you place your own morality over that of the greater good. Deontology is not focused on what is important, utilitarianism is. The argument I saved for this round is that utilitarianism allows cultures to frame how much weight they give to different types of immoral activity when morality is calculated. Just as the opposition showed in how they reworked my -10 to 10 example of how utilitarianism works. The opposition believes that getting wealthy is worth 60% of a single life. That is how the opposition chooses the weight his morality. Luckily, every culture influences their own weighting system so we don't all have to use the oppositions rather sociopathic math. After all, morality is subjective, not objective as the opposition and Kant would have you believe. There is no single moral truth, but I will get into that more when I rebuttal Kant directly. Now for my defense. I would like to remind everyone that my drunk driving example and my -10 to 10 example were merely for explanatory purposes and not arguments. It is fine that the opposition has chosen the drunk driving I created as one of their arguments. However, I do not approve of how you take advantage of the -10 to 10 example and straw man the third maxim of utilitarianism. Firstly, the -10 to 10 example was merely meant to show how 'the greatest good for the greatest number' would function. Obviously -10 to 10 is far too simplistic for the real world. Do not mistake my simplified example for the sake of defining as an argument. Secondly, how would you like it if instead of addressing Kant's first two maxims, I started attacking Kant's third maxim (that everyone should act as though they are the moral authority of the universe) even though you only presented Kant's first two maxims? This is exactly what you've done. I presented the first two Maxim's of utilitarianism (the ends justify the means, and the greatest good for the greatest number), and instead of addressing either of those you take out of context and mock the third utilitarian maxim, pleasure. As you'll see in the next section, I do not ignore Kant's maxims. Before moving into rebuttal, I'd like to shed more light on what the maxims mean. It was helpful of the opposition to provide them, but layman terms are in order. When the opposition keeps saying 'consistently will', think 'if everybody did it all the time'. For example, if you follow Kant and are deciding whether or not to dump your trash on the side walk instead of taking it to the dumpster, you would ask yourself "would I like to live in a world where everyone dumped their trash on the side walk all the time?". If your answer is no, then you should not dump your trash on the side walk. This is not a source of contention between Kant's philosophy and utilitarianism, the core philosophy of which centers on the big picture. Kant believed that every man is an end and not a means. This is the core of where Kant and utilitarianism differ. This is what we should be debating. I say the end justifies the means. The opposition, if in line with Kant, should say that because every man is an 'end' we are not allowed to treat them as means. This ignores the big picture. There are some 'ends' that are more important than the 'end' of a few. Achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, means not striving for what is best for a single end or man. And now for the rebuttals. The oppositions framework is to set up three scenarios where they believe utilitarianism would fail, and knock them out of the ball park with Kant. Those scenarios are "Drunk Driving", "Medical Dilemma", and "Experience Machine". I will show you how utilitarianism actually works in these scenarios and where Kant's philosophy falls short. The opposition has stated "In the eyes of the Utilitarian, Jake has done nothing wrong". This is wrong. The opposition has ignored my example of Martha, the Utilitarian who chose not to drink and drive after weighing the options. Jake was wrong to drink and drive. He is a bad influence, and if he were a utilitarian he would stop. The opposition is correct to say that we "intuitively think that [Jake] has done something wrong". But realize that we also intuitively know that Sally is worse than Jake because of the devastating consequences she caused. The opposition is contradictory when he agrees Sally is more condemnable. Kantian philosophy believes that moral judgment is contained in the act alone. You can either believe that Jake and Sally are equally bad and side with the opposition, or you can believe that Sally is worse than Jake (which even the opposition mistakenly agreed) and side with the government. The opposition's last two examples can be crushed with the same concept, so I've grouped them together. That concept is rule utilitarianism. You see, the opposition has been playing with a simplified version of utilitarianism called 'act utilitarianism'. For complex dilemma's such as mass organ transplants and experience machines, rule utilitarianism comes into play. Rule utilitarianism takes the greater goal of the individual into account. If the greater goal of the individual considering getting into the experience machine is to accomplish something in the real world, the would not get into the experience machine. The consequence to their greater goal would be far more devastating that the pleasure the machine could provide. The greater goal of a doctor is to promote health and not harm others. Even though chopping up one person could save six, this violates the greater goal of the doctor. Such a grievous violation would counter any good saving six lives would have done. In conclusion, the opposition has not touched my arguments and I have countered each of the opposition's examples. Both on my terms (adaptability, focus, subjective) and the opposition's terms (examples), utilitarianism has come out preferable. I look forward to the opposition's rebuttal. I used less words than last time so I'll leave you with a relevant joke by novelist Patrick O'Brian. "Two weevils crept from the crumbs. 'You see those weevils, Stephen?' said Jack solemnly. 'I do.' 'Which would you choose?' 'There is not a scrap of difference. Arcades ambo. They are the same species of curculio, and there is nothing to choose between them.' 'But suppose you had to choose?' 'Then I should choose the right-hand weevil; it has a perceptible advantage in both length and breadth.' 'There I have you,' cried Jack. 'You are bit - you are completely dished. Don't you know that in the Navy you must always choose the lesser of two weevils? Oh ha, ha, ha, ha!' " Yeah, we aren't supposed to use sources, but the above isn't evidence, it is merely humorous and I'm feeling jovial. If you can't stand sources in parliamentary that much just ignore the above quote and my argument is just as sound.