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

I will begin with clarifications, follow with refutation and finish with my case. Clarification: The resolution is specifically Kant's Categorical Imperative (outlined in the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals"). Personally, I do not know whether the type of utilitarianism is act or type, but I will be arguing for utilitarianism as outlined by Mill and Bentham. Aff Case: >"Has yet to explain why general happiness is the "good to the aggregate of all persons. " In this point my opponent asks the question "why should I care about others? " to answer this I offer the following points: 1. ) Individual Happiness is dependent to an extent on the happiness of others. When everyone around one is unhappy (friends, family, etc) one tends to also be less happy then they otherwise would be. This simple fact alone is reason enough for one to put some effort into the welfare of others. 2. ) Acting Morally is in one's self interest. If everyone on earth was to follow the same code of ethics, and to honor it at all times, we would all live better. But, as humans, we realize this will never be the case, someone will always have an opposing view, or will believe they achieve more through other, "immoral" means. Why then, should we act morally? because hypocrisy is bad. By taking advantage of such a situation, you make the statement that everyone should help you, but you do not have to help them. Acting in such a way destroys trust. A. ) Trust is the most important, and only thing we truly can have. Trust is the only think we can actually have, and is therefore the only real thing of value in our lives. Trust is the pre-requisite to having anything. For example: Possessions: Unless you can trust others not to take them, you cannot truly have possessions. You are simply the current geographical position where they are located. Without trust, the idea of possessions is destroyed. Without trust, we would be in Hobbes theoretical State of Nature, where one cannot produce, one cannot sleep and one cannot truly live. Life: Unless you can trust others not to kill you on sight, you cannot truly live. Everything we have is because we trust that other people are not trying to kill us. Imagine, if everything you purchased could be deadly, if every time you stepped outside you knew you could die. Also, imagine if you would have no way of producing anything yourself (back to State of nature, if no guarantee you could keep what you produce, no production). Very simply, you would die. Education: Without being able to trust your teachers to teach the truth (or mostly the truth) you cannot possibly be educated. ' Because trust is the only thing you can have, it is NEVER in your self interest to destroy it. This follows for any framework, utilitarianism included, it is for this reason, that you should care about other people's "utility" >Practically impossible As my opponent states, one does not need to be precognitive to be able to judge an action. In fact, because the purpose of ethics is to tell you what you ought to do in any given situation, all one needs to do is to weigh as much as they can in the time allowed. For example: A terrorist plans to blow up a building with hundreds of people in it. When given the chance, I kill the terrorist, and prevent the deaths of those hundreds of people. In this situation, I weighed the death of the terrorist, and the lives of the hundreds of people. Because I cannot know if any one of those people will become a next Hitler or something like this, I must assume that they won't. ::response to example:: Similarly to the situation above, because you could not know that the old lady would end up as the cause of a bad president (in your opinion). Because you could not have possibly known, you have to assume that such a thing is unlikely (as it obviously is…) >Defense of Kantian ethics - Stable foundation I don't know what my opponent expects me to provide in support of utilitarianism, but as far as I know, nearly all ethical frameworks are based in our autonomous use of reason. I certainly know that when I'm judging the amount of intended utility from an action I am undertaking I am not reading anyone else's mind, or using their logic… I am using mine, autonomously… NEG CASE Why Kant was Wrong: 1. ) Proper Maxim, Improper Action Kant's Categorical Imperative only cares about what maxim is being acted upon, with no regard for how. For example: the maxim "one ought to work toward the betterment of humanity" is a good maxim. However, if I decided that I could better humanity by eliminated a people I deemed "genetically inferior" this action would be immoral. However, Kant's framework would have no issue with this action, and would deem it moral due to the maxim being acted upon. 2. ) the Categorical Imperative requires utilitarian ideals to function. When judging a maxim, you must see if it ought to apply as a universal law. In order to do this, you weigh the pain caused by everyone acting on this maxim v. s. the happiness gained. In other words, Kant uses utilitarianism to weigh maxims. Because Kant is forced to use utilitarianism to make his framework function, it is clear that as long as this is true, utilitarianism is the clearly superior framework. 3. ) Most act on multiple maxims. When any given person does something, in almost every circumstance they have more than one reason to do it. For example, when I do community service, I do it to help the people, and I do it to fulfill my community service requirement at my college, as well as a host of other reasons I haven't even considered. It is ridiculous to think that one can act on only one maxim, or even act on a number of maxims that is judgable. Because of the nearly infinite number of reasons we do things, it is impossible for Kant's framework to provide a useable measure of morality. In Support of Utility 1. ) Happiness as ideal Utilitarianism is based on the idea that happiness is the highest goal in life. this idea certainly did not begin with mill or Bentham. In fact, Aristotle put forth this exact idea in the Nicomachean Ethics. Very simply, all things must have an end, and the only true end we can move toward is happiness, because of this, the only most valuable thing we can give or take away from people is also happiness. In Conclusion, because Kant's framework is unviable as an ethical measuring stick, and because Utilitarianism is not only a viable framework, but a complete one, with both reasons to act and a emphasis toward the "Highest good" as Aristotle put it, It is superior to Kant's framework.