The categorical imperative is a preferable ethical system to utilitarianism

When the Utilitarian is questioned about morality they assert three things:"Suffering is bad because I feel that it is""Suffering of the majority is worse than the minority because I irrationally will ignore the minority's value when making moral decisions.""Death, in which one cannot possibly suffer as they are not alive to feel any agony whatsoever, is magically 'suffering' because I say so!"This is actually CI level logic and it the basis of Utilitarianism as a whole.The Villager ExampleThe CI individual holding that gun with the thirty individuals might well kill the one for the many but this is only if their CI code labels killing as neutral or good. If their moral code labels killing as bad, it's ba unbreakable rule indeed. Here is where the Utilitarian becomes stupid... They would somehow decide which of the 30 is the one worth killing based on no data at all, then they would determine that the other 29 are not only worth more in the value of their life than this individual, since by opting to kill that individual over the others Not only is there no possible way to determine which of the 30 is worth killing over the others without any data but it's also impossible to justify this by Utilitarianism since death is not suffering but living through starvation and agony and making these people have to live a long life ahead of them traumatized by this experience will be more suffering than having let them all die. The issue is that suffering is not present in death at all, so by killing people you guarantee they have no suffering at all. This is where Utilitarianism begins to fall flat on its face.Another issue is these Utilitarians, as I stated in Round 1, would allow themselves to suffer for a majority and then feel 'good' about it. If what is happening to them is supposed to be suffering for the majority then if they feel good about their moral stance being higher than the rest then them suffering is good to them and then evil and good become the same thing. This is something Con never once addressed and if they address it next round I am not allowed to reply to which is bad conduct.The train example showed that Utilitarians, who aren't psychopaths, inherently have CI within them and it surface sin situations where empathy is suddenly required. Pushing someone over a bridge to save five lives is perceived very differently to pulling a lever to kill the same person instead of the five. This is indeed different but in Ci the line would be drawn base don the inherent rightness or wrongness of killing (which is up to the individual to decide) whereas a utilitarian will hypocritically say "I am so intellectual I have a flawless moral system that doesn't allow me to confuse right and wrong" and then hesitate before pushing the person off the bridge due to having empathy and inherent subjective qualms about the rightness of killing regardless of the five being saved or not.Suffering is a very subjective matter. Psychological suffering can occur by making people survive traumatic experience and them having PTSD the rest of their life wishing you'd let them die when you had the opportunity. In addition, if you have the option to rape one person to stop the rape of five others but the five others turned out to be extreme masochists with rape fantasies[1][2] while the one you were raping was a sadist[2] then you are increasing everyone' suffering as the masochists will envy the victim and the victim will hate what is happening to them.You have no clue what 'suffering' is to one individual because what makes one person suffer can absolutely please another. A good example is spicy food, for South Asians (generally speaking) spice is actually necessary and they suffer with the blandness of mild food. For others (generally speaking) spice, at least in its extremes, is agony as opposed to pleasure. If a utilitarian was asked to make food for these individuals, they'd have no way to know unless they actually went and interviewed all of them.In CI, the ignorance is accepted. A true adherent of CI acknowledges that they'll never really know if the people around them like spice or not, if they are worth killing or saving or raping. The individual that embraces CI will instead seek to constantly treat all the same regardless of the suffering it may cause them. In reality the Utilitarian does this too but is too blinded and hypocritical to see that they never will know if what they are doing end sup making more people suffer or not because of the subjective, individualistic nature of what suffering and pleasure truly entail.To the follower of CI, if their code states that 'killing is wrong' they will not kill any of the 30 because it would be a huge disrespect to the one they killed to say "hey the other 29 are worth saving over you and I decided this base don momentary impulse to save 29 people here and you just pulled the short straw sucker!". They will refuse to kill any of them as they respect the equal rights of all of them to live to an equal degree. This is what Utilitarians do not understand. By attacking a minority you are being the aggressor but by allowing nature to take its course you are not the one responsible. Indirect responsibility is not an actual reality. In the end only those acting in a scenario are the ones responsible for anything that happens. By allowing five to die you allowed them to die, by killing one you are a murderer. If that one was Einstein and the five were rapists you'd think differently. Utilitarians always assume all humans are equal morally and yet contradict this notion by thinking they have the right to determine which of a group should be actively hurt, or killed, by them in order to 'save' the others. The CI adherent respects that each and every individual truly is equal and that to actively hurt any one of them in order to stop the very same kind of hurt, or suffering, to come to others would make one a major hypocrite.If killing is bad/wrong then to kill anyone should be wrong. If it isn't wrong then it isn't wrong at all. There is no middle ground. Moral skeptics/nihilists disregard morality altogether and make decisions based on the situation. Adherents of CI have a moral code that is fair to all, regardless of one's luck to be in a majority or not. This is the fundamental reason that the resolution is true.If you were offered as sacrifice for many, and have your eyes gouged out and your mother and spouse raped before your eyes and their heads cut off and them suffering with rigor mortis as their dead bodies act on pure nerve contractions, you'd know how wrong it was, even if this saved 4 people, and in fact this is another problem with UT. In UT, you can kill one to save many, or rape one to save many being raped. However, what if you have to kill one to stop the rape of many? How to quantify the suffering of acts? What if the acts are nowhere near the same? Would you kill someone to stop three people being flicked on the nose? This is where the entire grey area come sin that CI doesn't have and is brutally fair to all.A last point, regarding gang rape, is that UT definitely allows gang rape. There is no objective way to measure society's well-being. What there is to measure is that five people being imprisoned and having to suffer punishment is making a majority suffer for the sake of one minority. Even if the majority of society believe that this is 'good', it is not good by UT standards. For instance, if a society suddenly happened to be a majority of rapists, the CI code would say it doesn't matter, rape is wrong no matter what (or right depending on the code). It either is or is not and applies to all. It is mercilessly fair and respects that each individual in a majority is just as worthless/worthy of respect as the minority you are about to make suffer.An act is an act, and unless you are morally neutral you need to decide if that act is good or bad in relation to the alternative of not doing it. The CI code is concrete and openly admits it's based on irrational subjective interpretation of right and wrong. UT is just as subjective in both its basis and application but seems to take some ridiculous 'higher ground' which can only be truly taken by psychopaths ignoring that minority's right to not be treated with evil.In conclusion, it is impossible to objectively verify suffering and furthermore impossible to create quantifiable measurements to contrast rape, murder and the likes to individuals who may be more masochistic than others. CI admits ignorance and says 'do not do this act ever' or allows anyone to do the act if it is not wrong. UT will say 'no this act is usually wrong because we irrationally have decided that these people are suffering under it even though we can't read their minds and you must not do it unless it stops many suffering in their minds form your perception'. Pleasure and pain are objectively unverifiable, you can hardly have a brain scanner ready at hand for every individual when making moral decisions in general life. CI saves time thinking but also is the fairest that any individual in a minority would be thankful and respectful that the individual with CI was doing.Summary note: Either resort to pure moral subjective relativism, or become absolute as CI. Don't resort to some hypocriticla system that would do acts, otherwise deemed evil, due to the bad luck of one end up in the perceived minority if a situation. If you were ever in that minority you'd loathe the Utilitarian for being immoral to you and smiling with glee because they think it's okay to do these horrific acts to you for the sake of a majority who, by pure chance/luck not by deserving to be, ended up as the majority in that scenario. Thus CI is preferable over UT from the perspective of the one receiving the evil.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...