Deontology

Thanks to fazz for accepting. OVERVIEW 1 Pro has violated R1 set-up by defering his arguments until R2. R1 specifically requires that "Pro must present his arguments in round one." This may seem trivial; however, since I have no BOP, my response were going to be formulated as a rebuttal to Pro, rather than as a case of my own. Regardless, Pro has violated the set-up, and, as per Rule 6, this merits a 7-point loss for Pro. OVERVIEW 2 Pro attempts to reinterpret the Imperative, by arguing that volition is not restricted by it. Unfortunately, the Categorical Imperative imposes moral duties upon people, hence, the term "Duty Theory." The maxims act as moral injunctions that compel action in accordance with those injunctions. Thus, if there is a maxim that says "do not kill" you may NEVER kill. Therefore, the Imperative does restrict your ability to act under your own volition and to act autonomously. Not only is Pro's point inaccurate, it is also a violation of the rules. In the Framework, it states that "moral laws are absolutes." Thus, if the maxim is "do not kill" it is ALWAYS wrong to kill. You cannot kill and still be moral. Volition cannot make a wrong action right, and Kant is certainly not "telling [you] that [you] have leeway. Under Rule 2, reinterpretation were prohibited, and so, under Rule 6, this merits a 7-point loss for Pro. MY ARGUMENTS Rational Agency Kant argues that, essentially "must respect rational agents as ends in themselves, but this is not so for non-rational agents." Rational agents, or agents with autonomy that can be logically exercised, must be treated as ends, yet things lacking autonomy and rationality may be treated as means. This opens the way for myriad grave abuses. Consider, a baby lacks rational agency and autonomy. Under the Imperative, this baby has no moral worth, and may be treated as a tool. This also applies to the mentally handicapped, comatose, brain dead, and (possibly) animals. Clearly, the flaw here is that Human Dignity does not reside just in rational agents, but in all humans (and maybe beyond.) Morality as Universally Valid Morality is inherently subjective. I'm a liberal, and I believe abortion is morally permissible. I have a friend who vehemently disagrees. Because morality is culturally and socially influenced, it is not the sort of thing that can be universalized. Morality as Ignoring the Consequences If confronted with a two benign possibilites, how do we determine which one to take? Let's say that I could go to the mall or call a friend. Both possibilites are morally permissible, so Kant would allow either. But, it may be more moral to prefer calling the friend, because it makes two people happy, rather than one. When faced with two options, one that has no loss, and the other that has a gain, we should prefer the latter. Morality as Universally Derived The Imperative assumes that "there are certain obvious conclusions that can be made about morality based on universally recognized principles of right conduct." This is clearly false inasmuch as morality is subjective. There is so much that cannot be agreed upon by a majority, let alon uninanimously, that we cannot possibly derive moral rules from supposed "universal" understandings. Over to Pro...