Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

My opponent generously placed my burden for this round into four dot points, as follows: - show how the 2nd maxim's interpretation is not against suicide, and in fact is against condemning suicide. - show why Kant would be wrong in his own philosophy - show why the impracticality of a law should supersede morality - refute Kant's categorical imperative" A quick look at this list makes clear that my burden can easily be summarized by one point, which is to refute Kant's categorical imperative as sole (my opponent has provided nothing else) indicator of what is and is not moral. We should note here that my opponent's ENTIRE argument hinges upon the following: 1. Kant's categorical imperative is the sole decider of what is morally wrong/right. 2. Therefore, if Kant's categorical imperative says something is immoral, then it IS immoral. 3. Therefore, the government should make laws based solely upon Kant's categorical imperative. 4. Kant's imperative says suicide is immoral, hence suicide should be illegal. Voters, I will provide an excellent example of what Kant's categorical imperative says is morally correct, which is commonly used to show the absurdity of it all: -A man with a knife tells you he is going to slit your best friend's throat. He asks you where your friend lives so he can go around and do the deed. According to Kant's categorical imperative, you may NEVER lie, as it is using yourself as a means to an end, the end being to save your friend's life. Hence, if we were to accept Kant's categorical imperative as the be-all and end-all of morality, we would believe telling the murderer where your friend is to be the right thing to do. Thus, if our government were to start basing laws upon Kant's imperative, we would end up with ridiculous laws such as it being illegal to lie, even in circumstances like this. This one example, and there are countless more we could think of, shows the common failings of what is known as the "German philosophy"[1]: -It is unrealistic. It discounts the obvious subjective nature of morality itself. -It unduly stresses the ego. It presumes that within ALL of us is the in-born knowledge of what is and is not morally right. For example, it has nothing to say of masochists, who enjoy having pain inflicted upon them. -It proclaims the perfectibility of the will. This is, in my opinion, tied in with the first point, which is that it is entirely unrealistic to expect people to control their own will to the point where they will tell a murderer where their friend is rather than tell a white lie. These three points I would like to summarize as follows: Our laws should REFLECT society's nature, NOT tell society what their nature is. Voters, my opponent has based his entire argument upon Kant's categorical imperative. He failed to show why Kant's imperative was the sole decider of human morality, and I showed that it most certainly is not. He failed to show that the government should even concern themselves with, let alone instill laws based upon, Kant's imperative. I have shown why they most certainly should not. My opponent DID show that according to Kant's imperative, suicide is immoral, and I must concede that point. But as I've shown, this is elementary at best, because the government should not, and thankfully does not, base its law system on Kant's categorical imperative, which is at best impractical and at worst dangerous. While I did concede that the government should instill laws with are morally virtuous, my opponent failed to uphold his belief that the meter for measuring that morality is Kant's categorical imperative. As this is the last round, I may not post any further arguments, but note that my opponent conceded the point that a law against suicide is impractical, as there is no way to punish the ‘criminal'. My opponent suggested that the law will allow us to provide counseling for those who attempt suicide, but it is obvious that we could do that without a law. For example, alcoholics and cigarette addicts are provided with, mostly free, access to counseling, and both of those are legal. Indeed, as it stands in America today, you can get counseling for suicide prevention, but it is not against the law. Thus, my opponent's point is moot, and the law against suicide remains impractical and unnecessary. I thank the Skeptic for this debate, I'm certainly no philosopher so I enjoy these opportunities to read up on some of the greats. Vote CON. [1] - http://www.radicalacademy.com...