kant's categorical imperetive is superior to utilitarianism as a ethical framework

Unfortunately, many of his rebuttals are misguided. He either misunderstands Kant's categorical imperative, or he misunderstands my argument. Let me explain: ==================== Attacks against utilitarianism - Has yet to explain why general happiness is the "good to the aggregate of all persons. " ==================== My opponent offers two different reasons for why we should be concerned with the happiness of others. Unfortunately for him, both reasons fall very short of their target. A. ) Individual happiness is dependent to an extent on the happiness of others This is absolutely false. While many times our own happiness can be affected by the state of others (this is given), there are many instances when I can be happy WITHOUT the happiness of others. For example, playing a computer game by myself would entertain me but no one else. Masturbating, though a lewd example, is a very common activity and is a clear instance of private happiness (given no one else is there). B. ) Acting morally is in one's self interest This claim, even if it was true, does not follow for why our happiness is in part the happiness of others. My opponent's lengthy explication of this point is basically summarized with the Golden Rule - do to others what you would have done to yourself. The reason for this is so we won't be in a state of chaos, and with this I agree. However, this is merely a pragmatic outlook on morality and isn't even CLOSE or RELEVANT for why we should be concerned with the happiness of others. Trust can be important, but it isn't a necessary foundation for why we should want happiness for others - it's merely one of the means. ==================== Attacks against utilitarianism - Practically impossible ==================== My opponent's defense of the problem of future consequences is simply that "all one needs to do is to weigh as much as they can in the time allowed. " This is absolutely unwarranted - why must the truth of a moral proposition be dependent on the ability of a person to assess a situation? Furthermore, if the moral truth of an event depends on how much one can "weigh the consequences" in the time allowed, then this would seem to lead to epistemological relativism, which in turn leads to metaphysical relativism (that reality is in flux). For example, if someone saw a person about to hit by a car and saves him, since to him it seems like this would generate the greatest amount of happiness, then this would be a moral act. However, if another bystander with more knowledge see's that the person being saved is actually a Mafia leader, then saving him would be IMMORAL since the Mafia leader is likely to cause more pain/suffering/death as he lives on. Here we have more than one person assessing the same situation - so who's evaluation should we take? The only way to escape this problem is to believe one can assess all of the future consequences, which is practically impossible. ==================== Attacks against utilitarianism - Claim to psychological egoism ==================== My opponent has yet to refute this point. Classic utiltiarianism states that everyone desires happiness, but what justification do we have for this claim? Presently, my opponent has none. ==================== Defense of Kantian ethics - Stable foundation ==================== ". .. as far as I know, nearly all ethical frameworks are based in our autonomous use of reason. " Absolutely untrue. Your brand of classic utilitarianism is based on the idea that everyone ultimately desires happiness, and that we should be concerned for the happiness of others. Sure, you come to this conclusion via reason but the conclusion itself is not respect for reason. Kantian ethics, however, IS based on reason. ==================== Attacks against utilitarianism - List of my opponent's criticisms ==================== 1. ) Proper Maxim, Improper Action This criticism reveals a stark lack of understanding on my opponent's part. Kant clearly stated that a perfect duty is one that can be conceived, meaning it does not result in logical contradictions. Therefore, eliminating people due to arbitrary reasons would result in logical conflicts as almost everyone (if not all) would die. For example, if your maxim was "it's okay to steal" then it would result in a logical contradiction, because stealing implies property but if everyone stole then there would be no property. It should be noted that the maxims are meant to be UNIVERSAL. 2. ) The Categorical Imperative requires utilitarian ideals to function. As stated before, I've shown why this is false. Kantian ethics is founded on respect for reason, not utility or happiness. 3. ) Most act on multiple maxims. When did Kant ever state we can't have multiple maxims? In fact, I find it hard to believe you have a NEARLY infinite number of reasons you do things. If needed, you can group many actions into one maxim. Furthermore, there are many amoral actions in which moral judgments aren't needed. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent sticks in one last argument at the end, stating that happiness is "ideal". Whatever it may be, he has yet to justify why everyone desires happiness - what evidence does he have for this claim? In fact, I find it amusing that my opponent would refer to Aristotle when his ethical philosophy is quite different from utilitarianism, namely virtue ethics. As I have shown, my opponent misunderstands Kantian ethics and to an extent my rebuttals.