Resolution: Ulilitarianism is a superior moral theory to Kantianism.

A ‘Drop’ One small point to mention before we continue, while my opponent does attempt to refute my objections to Kantian theory, he doesn’t attack my reasons for believing Utilitarianism. This drop isn’t game breaking, but it shows my opponent agrees that there are reasons to think that Utilitarianism is true. Why Utilitarianism Succeeds The problem with my opponent’s objection is that it is stressed by Mill (and other utilitarian’s) that the theory of Utilitarianism is not supposed to be a decision procedure (as I mentioned in Round two). In other words, utilitarians don’t suggest that whenever one wants to make a moral decision that one should try to make utilitarian calculation. This would be silly for many reasons, including the ones my opponent has mentioned. This nullifies the judgment argument, just because people can’t use Utilitarianism in their daily lives doesn’t mean the theory is incorrect. In fact, there are many situations when we can use it (especially if we have the time to do the calculation). Another problem with my opponent’s objection is that the theory of Utilitarianism is strictly mathematical; each thing is good to a certain degree and is assigned a number corresponding to the degree of its goodness. Osama Bin Laden and Hitler would have known that they were wrong if they had truly been a Utilitarian mindset. People not following the theory correctly isn’t an error in the theory, it’s a practical concern. This is why the judgment argument is simply false. It should be pointed out that even if my opponent succeeds on these objections, they would only show that Kantianism is just as wrong. One could easily claim that Osama Bin Laden was acting on the first formulation, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” with the maxim “Attack Islam-hating Countries”. My opponent and I both know that America is not an Islam-hating country, but if my opponent is correct about the subjective nature of utilitarianism then it falls to Kantianism as a problem as well. The same logic would apply with the argument about we are not able to judge the consequences properly, we are able to see all the results of our “universal law”, this must mean that we cannot truly fully judge the categorical imperative because we will inevitably make a inaccurate universal law. Why Kant cannot compete My opponent simply misunderstands the Utilitarian theory; in fact he equates Hedonism with Utilitarianism. The problem with this is that Utilitarianism is about everyone’s happiness not just your own, Hedonism is the theory where only one’s pleasure matters (though I would agree cognitive bias exists, it is virtually eliminated by the mathematical nature of the theory). This is why my opponent cannot say that Utilitarianism denies these truths as well. One could easily claim (via rule utilitarianism) that these rules would maximize utility; however act utilitarianism would do the same thing in almost every situation. Simply because helping others (or any other maxim) may not always be morally superior in some situations (such as helping a person doing bad things, leading to negative consequences) shouldn’t count against the theory unless we assume Kantianism. The problem with his universally applicable categorical imperative is that Utilitarianism has the advantage of being universally applicable in some cases and not in other cases. For each particular instance or place in time with a particular situation, a particular set of consequences exists that satisfy the choices that could potentially be made. Therefore, for any given instance the same action (that maximizes utility) will be the correct action. However, when certain circumstances arise (such as an emergency situation) Kantianism is left the same decision that it is for the non-emergency situation. What it attempts to make up for in consistency it loses in flexibility. One cannot say that one can appeal to ultra-subjective means via Utilitarianism unless one concedes the same for Kantianism; this point was made in the third paragraph. Responses to Rebuttals My opponent has misunderstood the nature of the objection. Utilitarianism explicitly says do the action which will maximize utility, not don’t do the action which will reduce utility. Kantianism comparably tells you what’s impermissible and permissible not what you should do. This is an important problem because while ethics maybe about what’s good to do, normative ethical theories are explicitly about what one should do. This is the reason why Kantianism is in need of revision, because if the objection goes through, then Utilitarianism(by virtue of it actually being what it claims to be, a normative ethical theory and Kantianism isn’t) ought to be considered the superior of the two. In example my opponent mentioned, if my opponent was correct then Utilitarianism wouldn’t be a valid normative ethical theory. However, since this is not the case the objection stands. In the miser example, my opponent mentions that the Miser should give the money charitably to the man. However, as mentioned above this is not the case. As long as the motivation of morality was being considered it doesn’t matter where he gives the money. So the fact that he gives it to the man (unknown to the Miser that’s the money is for a vaccine) doesn’t have moral significance. However it still doesn’t tell us what the Man should do. Therefore the example stands. My opponent misunderstands the motivation objection. The problem with intentions and motivations is that any motivation besides morality confers no moral value. You want to see kids happy because it makes you happy, confers no moral value. Multiple examples would show the same thing with any value besides morality. My opponent hasn’t responded to this whatsoever. He analyzed the example without recognizing the criticism. I suppose assuming Kantianism, there is no reason to think the state of affairs changes the moral value of preventing massive disasters or many more deaths than violating the initial categorical imperative, however we can see that many situations would lend the favorable outlook to be toward Utilitarianism. Surely lying to your boss would be noble if it were to save the lives of many people. Even though it violates the Universality maxim, it would seem morality would favor Utilitarianism. My opponent mentions Math as an example, I will use Science. Surely, the principles that govern the universe (which are universal by definition) have differing properties given the system they are operating in and the surrounding conditions. Kant on the other hand operates assuming that circumstances don’t ever change. While it is true that you could find other ways to feed your family, it doesn’t affect the objection. Because the maxims still contradict. Let me explain, the Universality Maxim says we cannot steal for the reasons mentioned above. However because my family has inherent worth the Humanity Maxim says that the stealing would be okay. Therefore the action is both permissible and impermissible simultaneously. Simply saying that there are other ways of addressing this problem doesn’t change Kant’s ruling that both maxims contradict in certain situations.