The categorical imperative is a preferable ethical system to utilitarianism

== Definitions == My opponent offers "[his] interpretation" of the Categorical Imperative (CI), which is a formulation I have never seen before. For those that don't know, the CI was first formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. The CI is said to be "categorical" because it applies without any conditions. [1] So for example, the statement: "if I am thirsty, I must drink" is not categorical because it contains a triggering "hypothetical" ("if I am thirsty"). [1] The phrase, "If you must choose between saving five people or one person, save the five people" would be categorized by Kant as a "hypothetical" imperative (as opposed to a "categorical" imperative) because it only applies conditionally [as evidenced by the "if" statement]. [1] Because the categorical imperative must apply without conditions, it cannot be formulated as a case-specific inquiry. [1] Instead, Kant formulated the following principle and dubbed it the Categorical Imperative: "Never treat a person as a means to an end," you must only treat people as ends in themselves. [2] If you look at my opponent's definition of the CI, it is basically a situation-specific inquiry that depends on your emotions at the time. Not only is this formulation not "categorical" [because people will reach different moral conclusions based on their situation-specific inquiries], but it is not even an "imperative" [because people can choose to do whatever they want in a given situation, based on their emotional state at the time]. My opponent fails to argue in favor of anything that remotely resembles the CI. His formulation of "utilitarianism" (UTIL) is also not one that I endorse. As a general matter, UTIL tries to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. However, there are different "flavors" of utilitarianism (much like ice cream). One of these "flavors" is "act utilitarianism," which evaluates each individual action on a cost-benefit scale. In contrast, "rule utilitarianism" sets out to establish *only* broad-based moral rules (that are widely applicable) based on a cost-benefit analysis. Under rule utilitarianism, an act is always immoral if it violates one of these moral rules. Essentially, rule utilitarianism seeks to establish what Kant would call conditional ("hypothetical") rules that apply situationally, whereas the categorical imperative seeks to set only one rule that must always be followed. In today's debate, I endorse rule utilitarianism, not act utilitarianism. My opponent's formulation of UTIL, which states that the suffering of a minority group must always be subordinated to the benefit of the majority, is simply incorrect. First, even act utilitarianism accounts for the *magnitude* of the harm and the benefit. If something will harm a small group immensely and benefit a large group only marginally, the enormous magnitude of the harm to the "minority" outweighs the small benefit to the "majority." Second, rule utilitarianism only adopts *rules* that are net-beneficial to society. A rule -- for example -- that minorities can have their property confiscated at any time is *not* net-beneficial to society because everyone has some way in which he or she can be classified as in the "minority" (i.e. race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, eye color, height, weight, etc.), and the result of such a rule in terms of the disruption of property rights, productivity, and the general "rule of law" (by allowing mass persecution of minorities) outweighs any marginal benefit to the majority group of capturing additional monies. So *rules* that attempt to treat minorities unfairly are generally going to be suspect under rule utilitarianism because such rules have disruptive effects. == My Case == (1) Argument against the CI Unfortunately, I feel like I'm arguing against a straw man because my opponent never really endorses the CI. However, I offer my reasons here as to why the CI is *not* a preferable ethical system to UTIL. Remember, the CI says that people can *never* be used as a means to an end. In contrast, UTIL allows people to be used as a means to an end as long as the ethical *rule* that is adopted -- on balance -- leads to a better "end" than an alternative rule. The CI is obviously a much more rigid ethical system (given that it is "categorical"). Joseph Nye of Harvard University cites the following hypothetical to show the ridiculousness of the categorical imperative: you pass through a conflict area and a rebel captain has captured 30 innocent villagers. The captain is going to execute the innocent villagers for being from a rival tribe. You pass by and the captain, for his amusement, hands you a gun and says: shoot one villager and I will let the rest go free. If you refuse, the captain will order his men to shoot all of the villagers. Nye asks, "Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving [the rest], or will you allow [all] to die but preserve your moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game?" [3] The CI requires you to *refuse to act.* Under the CI, you cannot kill one person to save a larger group of people because doing so uses the one person as a "means to an end." The person"s life is nothing more than a means to achieve the "end" of saving people. Kant would say that choosing to sacrifice the one person fails to respect inherent human dignity. In contrast, UTIL posits that it is pointless to refuse to act because (a) the one person dies either way, and (b) 30 deaths is much worse than one death. Nye goes on to say that the implications are even more profound in the age of nuclear ethics, where a situation might arise where you need to kill one person (say, a potential nuclear terrorist) to save every life on the planet. [3] The CI -- because it eschews any conditions or exceptions to its categorical proscriptions -- is too rigid an ethical system for the modern age. [3] As another example, the United States reserves the right to seize private property when it is necessary to do so to achieve a great public good. For example, imagine that California has drawn up plans to build a new super-fast bullet train throughout the state that will speed up commuting times, enable faster shipping of products, and is projected to add $30 billion per year to the state's economy. The state is offering homeowners whose houses are in the path of the proposed train a very generous price for their property. Of the 1000 property owners affected, 999 choose to sell their homes voluntarily. The remaining *one* homeowner refuses to sell. The state is currently permitted to take the home (in a "condemnation" action) and simply pay the owner the home's fair market value. The CI says that allowing condemnation actions is immoral because it uses a person as a means to an end. The state fails to respect the single homeowner's dignity because it treats him merely as a means to achieve the "end" that is the bullet train. So under the CI, the state must abandon the bullet train, despite its benefit to the state of $30 billion per year, even though there is only a single holdout landowner. In contrast, UTIL allows condemnation actions to proceed where there is a demonstrated and substantial public interest because UTIL recognizes that a single holdout should not jeopardize something that is clearly in the best interest of society. (2) Argument against my opponent's moral system, whatever it is Whatever system of ethics my opponent advocates, it is clearly not the categorical imperative. So technically, the resolution does not require me to argue against it. But just to be safe, I will. My opponent's system is flawed because it is the worst form of moral relativism. His system deems any act to be "moral" as long as the person performing the act decided to perform it based on their emotions. Such an ethical system is indistinguishable for adopting *no* ethical system at all. In a world with no ethics, people would simply do whatever their emotions dictated. Societal codes of conduct and ethical rules could not be adopted because my opponent's system entitles every person to act however he or she pleases. Such a system is absurd. My opponent himself admits that his proposed system could be used to "simultaneously say that rape is good and bad," which makes his ethical system worthless. And he concedes that psychopaths pose a serious problem for his system of ethics because they have no empathy to guide their actions in the right direction. == Rebuttal == My opponent says a lot of things. I'll try to tease out some coherent points from his Round 1 and respond to them. R1) Gang rape would be seen as moral under UTIL No, it wouldn't. Even under ACT UTIL, the magnitude of the lasting psychological harm to the person raped outweighs any fleeting sexual benefit derived by the rest of the group. Furthermore, RULE UTIL would not permit gang rape, as a general rule. A rule that requires consent to sex is preferable to a rule that allows rape because society derives benefits from establishing order and uphold sexual autonomy and choice. The cumulatively negative psychological impact and the many unwanted pregnancies that would stem from a *rule* allowing gang rape completely outweigh the temporary sexual satisfaction that the rapist achieves. R2) The train track hypotheticals I'll address these hypotheticals next round, *if* my opponent first explains what they have to do with the CI vs. UTIL. I think I know where he is going with this, but I don't want to presume. R3) Suffering is not bad?? My opponent says something to the above effect. I'm not sure what he means, but I don't endorse the Benthamite calculation of suffering versus pleasure, but rather characterize the cost-benefit analysis in UTIL as weighing all "negative effects" versus all "positive effects" of a given rule. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] "Nuclear Ethics," p. 18-9