The categorical imperative is a preferable ethical system to utilitarianism

== Overview == There isn't really a "debate" to be had at this point: my opponent drops the definitions section and never proves that what he is advocating for even is the Categorical Imperative. It's certainly not what Kant thought of as the CI. And I don't see any other philosopher cited by Pro to prove that his system -- that people ought to make ethical decisions based on their emotions at the time -- is a reasonable understanding of the CI that I should have to argue against. At the point where Pro has BOP to uphold the CI, he already loses. I didn't define the CI in round 1 because it is so acutely associated with Kant that no reasonable person would purport to just make up their own ethical system and call it the CI. I assumed whoever took the debate would do so only if he or she knew what the CI was. In addition, my opponent continues to argue against ACT UTIL not RULE UTIL. As I said, I don't endorse ACT UTIL. So again, there's not much of a debate to be had here. The debate is over at this point. Pro fails the BOP to prove that the CI is a better ethical system than RULE UTIL. There's no reason to continue reading. However, if you want to, you may. I'll address my opponent's last round out of an abundance of caution. == Rebuttal == (1) The Villager Example Pro essentially argues against this by asking: how does one choose which of the 30 villagers to kill. First off, Pro has changed the hypothetical. Joseph Nye said that the rebel captain has already chosen for you. The rebel captain says, essentially, "kill person #1 and I will let persons #2-30 go free. " So the reason I didn't address this issue yet is because it wasn't part of the original hypothetical. But let's consider a new hypothetical where the rebel commander lets *you* choose whom to kill. The most fair rule of thumb would be that if any of the thirty villagers *volunteer* to be the sacrifice, you choose from amongst the volunteers because they have consented. If no one consents, you consider factors like age and contribution to the community. Kill the 90-year-old crack addict over the 30-year-old businessman. As Pro points out, it's not "fair" to have to prioritize one life over another. But the situation isn't of your choosing; it was forced upon you by the rebel commander. The CI would say that because it's unfair to value one human life above another, you must "refuse to play [the rebel commander's] dirty game" and must abstain from action. You cannot use a human life as a means to an end. However, the result of the CI is that 30 people die instead of one, which is an unjust result, especially considering that all 30 people would prefer that you shoot one of them over not acting (although none of them wants it to be them, even though they are no worse off than if you refuse to act, and the rebel commander kills them all). The CI results in an obviously immoral outcome: people unnecessarily die. My opponent claims that the PTSD from survival is worse than death because death ends suffering. However, as I said, UTIL cares about costs and benefits, not necessarily "suffering. " Death is obviously worse than PTSD because at least if you are alive, you can work through your PTSD and still have a relatively happy, productive life. My opponent says something to the effect that under his moral system (which I refuse to call the "CI"), if a person's subjective moral code says killing is wrong, they should not kill the one villager to save the many. If a person's personal moral code says murder is okay, they should kill the one person. So basically, under my opponent's system, only a murderer acts morally in the situation (by saving lives). This seems ironic. In addition, this example shows how my opponent is really advocating moral relativism, not the CI. The outcome depends entirely on who happens to be there in that situation , and the person simply follows his or her own personal, intuitive moral code. That's not what Kant envisioned. My opponent's advocacy amounts to saying morality doesn't matter because it does not dictate that you act in a certain way. Just do whatever you feel is right. My opponent's advocacy in fact almost borders on moral nihilism, advocating that we shouldn't bother trying to craft an ethical *system. * Just let people do whatever they want. (2) The train examples To review, the train examples involve two hypotheticals. Scenario 1: Six people are on train tracks, when they shouldn't be. Five of them are on Track A. One of them is on Track B. A train is coming and is going to hit the people on Track A. Would you pull a lever to divert the train to Track B. Scenario 2: Five people are on Track A. A fat man is on a bridge overlooking Track A. You know, with certainty, that the fat man is heavy enough to stop the train before it hits the five people. Do you push the fat man off the bridge? Most people say that they would pull the lever in Scenario 1, but would not push the fat man off the bridge in Scenario 2. There's an obvious reason, under RULE UTIL, that you would want a rule that allows you to save lives in Scenario 1, but not Scenario 2. In Scenario 1, there is one major difference: all six people have done something wrong. They should not be on the train tracks. They actions have put you in a situation not of your choosing. You either have to save five people or one person. So you save five people. Scenario 1 is similar to the Villager Example from Joseph Nye. In Scenario 2, the fat man has done nothing wrong. He just happens to be there. If you choose to push him off the bridge, that is a situation of your choosing. There is no "proximate relationship" between the fat man and the train. If you push him, you have unfairly involve his life in a situation that had nothing to do with him. If RULE UTIL allowed murder whenever it saved lives, this would be problematic because it would allow murder *in every scenario*, since every murder victim could potentially be an organ donor. RULE UTIL cannot tolerate such an outcome. In contrast, Scenario #1 involves something that American law calls the "necessity defense" to murder: you had no choice in the matter. Someone was going to die and you acted to save lives. The train was going to hit someone either way. But for the fat man, the train was *not* going to hit him but-for your actions, so you can't murder him for the greater good. RULE UTIL is preferable because it leads to clear rules for society. In contrast, my opponent's moral relativism permits murder. My opponent says his ethical system "acknowledges that they'll never really know if the people around them like spice or not, if they are worth killing or saving or raping. " My opponent says as long as you treat everyone the same (i. e. murder anyone you feel like killing or rape anyone you feel like raping), then murder and rape are okay. I ask you, is an ethical system that permits murder and rape really a coherent ethical system? (3) Continued attacks on ACT UTIL My opponent says that UTIL permits you to rape one person to prevent the rape of many (or to gang rape someone for pleasure). However, RULE UTIL would prohibit rape as harmful to society, so rape would never be permitted. Same with murder. However, RULE UTIL can have conditionals (i. e. exceptions). If you need to protect your own life, you may kill someone. The CI -- as my opponent acknowledges -- does not allow hypotheticals. If killing is wrong, it must always be wrong in all scenarios, regardless of circumstances. RULE UTIL is *somewhat* similar to the CI in that it tries to prescribe broader rules for society, rather than telling people to run their own subjective utilitarian calculation in every circumstance, but it is *less rigid* because it can proscribe contingent, hypothetical rules that have exceptions, whereas the CI has to apply categorically. RULE UTIL can create *multiple rules* to fit various situations, whereas the CI only has one rule: you can never treat someone as a means to an end. The problem is that sometimes people's rights come into conflict: one person's right to life comes into conflict with other people's rights to life. One person's property comes into conflict with the greater good (such as in the bullet train example from the previous round). RULE UTIL allows us to adjudicate these competing rights claims, whereas the CI forces us to choose *inaction* because to prefer one person's rights over another's treats that person as a "means to an end. " Because it is a more flexible ethical system, RULE UTIL is preferable to the CI.