Pick your own debate - 1G

Since neither of us has spoken about utilitarianism (I planned to only if she were to attack it), then I will assume that we both agree that if I show Kantian ethics to be invalid/unsound then I would effectively fulfill the resolution -- because at the least this would demonstrate that it is not more moral to kill a criminal than to use him for utilitarian gains. This should be quite evident. My opponent's defense of Kant crumbles under one main reason: she has too much of a myopic view that is a consequence of concentrating solely on the popular counterexample used against Kant of the murder who is looking for his victim, and you being obliged to tell the murderer the truth. I will explain why her reasoning on this example is insufficient to solve the problems of Kant's categorical imperative, and of how this problem can manifest in another way as well: ===================== A major logical flaw of Kant's Categorical Imperative -- Conflicts of obligations ===================== The murder counterexample is something my opponent concentrates on for a paragraph, and her conclusions about it is in fact something I would agree that is consistent in Kant's theory -- because the murderer has given up his own right to life, you do not have to respect his rights. This is a popular interpretation of Kant and a defense of such counterintuitive counterexamples. The problem is that my opponent focuses TOO MUCH on this analogy and fails to see other possibilities and the implications it bears: Firstly, you must realize that the counterexample is formulated in a way as to force a dilemma: you can only either lie or tell the truth. Of course, in real life situations there's always a plethora of other possibilities (not saying anything, whacking him over the head, etc. ), but this misses the point. The philosopher can simply tweak the conditionals of the hypothetical counterexample until he forces you into a desired dilemma. Nevertheless, my opponent can still escape this by stating she doesn't have to respect his rights and thus refuse appeal to the murderer. However, this is just this particular counterexample. .. Take the following counterexample I have created in consideration; it's much more to the point I am stressing and common: You are confronted by your significant other who asks you a question - one that you know if you truthfully answer will emotionally hurt the significant other (and assume the circumstances of your answer does not include foul play on any person's fault). This happens many times, and it can be as simple as a white lie or as serious as an an unfortunate event that happened to someone such as death. On one hand, you are obligated to tell the truth according to the categorical imperative. Likewise, you are obligated to further the welfare of the common person and especially you're loved ones. This, among many others, is a case in which two rules are in conflict but NO PERSON has done something as to constitute punishment on themselves (such as willing to murder, in which the categorical imperative would allow a "whiplash" effect back on them as my opponent mentions). If no foul play is detected, then we have a dilemma of two rules in conflict and no way out. This brings up the issue of how can Kant resolve such conflicts. One strategy is to show that some party involved in a situation has committed foul play (a term loosely meaning someone's rights can be forfeited because of what they have done). An obvious instance is the murder-victim counterexample. However, with a plethora of daily counterexamples this strategy does not suffice. Another way is to prioritize certain obligations, such as the sanctity of human life over the abolition of lying. However, Kant has NOTHING to give a sway on this matter which puts any Kantian in a logical dilemma. Take another hypothetical: this time you are confronted by a news crew who are covering a story about a special family of which only YOU hold information about -- they obviously know about this, and the majority of the people want to know about it in the name of free press. However, you also realize that if you release such information, you give the chance of having several people who want to murder the family have vital information to find them and kill them. Now do you uphold the obligation of allowing free press or the obligation to preserve human life? Now it would first seem that you could simply say nothing -- but remember that one can simply tweak hypothetical to the point in which you have to choose either telling the truth or lying. As you can see, there is an obvious dilemma. Almost everyone believes that freedom of press is valuable, albeit normally with limitations (such as if the release of said information would endanger others). However, to add such conditionals would to construct a HYPOTHETICAL imperative and not a CATEGORICAL imperative. The latter is devoid of conditionals and does not care about the consequences. .. but in doing so violates it's own logical grounds. ===================== Conclusion ===================== Ironically, Kantian ethics is destroyed by a logical argument when itself prides to be based on reason. Before I conclude, I want to note that my opponent gives a case for Kantian ethics and brings up several general points about Kant's ethics. I submit that these are more or less accurate representations of his theory, but this troubles me not as my argument still stands.