Kant

That being said, I shall now offer my final rebuttal. NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIESMy opponent begins his argumentation by repeating the argument about the categorical imperative being flawed as a normative theory. However, in round 2, I've already debunked this claim, as well as his refutation of my view of the imperative as an ethical guideline. The problem lies in functionality. If one is to examine the purpose of an ethical normative, then it is obvious that such normatives exist to best direct human actions and give the best results. Not necessarily define actions and moves for every situation, because every situation differs from another do to the state of affairs etc. Theories that seek to define actions clearly fail in their very formulation. Kant's imperative provides a fine guide as well as offering a substantial freedom of thought, making it a viable ethical theory for aid in human action. Furthermore, it seems my opponent doesn't understand the first formulation of Kant's imperative very clearly. I shall quote it again:"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction. "A universal law indicates literally what it means - a hypothetical world in which every situation the same or almost the same as a certain one would be solved in the same way. Such a thing cannot exist in reality, and therefore cannot have practical consequences. However, if one understands Kant's work, one would see the functionality of this maxim in the hypothetical sphere - my opponent has failed to do so, and indeed, failed to refute my argumentation about hypotheticality. Also, Kant's theory never goes in favour of rejecting and abandoning belief - belief is created through rationalization and is a key part of thought. Kant also never denies emotion as the underlying cause of action, or even a factor which affects decision-making. His imperative only favours rationalizing one's decisions through thought, for emotions truly aren't rational. As for the example about voting - are those people really in the same situation? They live in different conditions, different type of families, and finally, they are all different individuals per se. Kant's universality presupposes a truly and completely exact situation, therefore the example offered by my opponent fails to refute my claims. My opponent misunderstands the practical application of Kant's imperative wholly. Truly Kant does encourage acting as per his imperative - that is why he formulated it in the first place. However, universality cannot per se be applied to the real world. A human being can use it as thought process, though, and then apply his findings to the real world through the rationalization that Kant continuously encourages in the Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals. I am thus not in contradiction towards any of Immanuel Kant's claims or statements. Finally, universality serves to destroy unrationalized beliefs such as "murder is great". Say someone truly believes that - they have a positive emotion towards murder (the underlying cause). Now, they imagine a situation where everyone feels the same as them and goes around, merrily killng everybody else. Surely, that person is bound to see that not even they could survive in such a world, and that their own emotion and unrationalized belief concerning murder would be their end. Here we also have another application of universality in the real world. CONFLICTSFirstly, I've actually written in round 3 that humanity does generally look towards ends. One cannot negate that, nor can one try - my opponent's accusations concerning this are unfounded. Also, what I've claimed in round two is that the best ethical theory is the one that examines morality through human nature - indeed. As far as I recall, I have also continuously been stating that Kant's imperative takes relativity (thus, human nature as well) into account from the very beginning of this debate. Furthermoe, my opponent fails to understand what I meant by the application of Kant's imperative in his hypothetical situation of stealing food. I did not mean the family which finds itself in said predicament, but their entire society. Had the societal hierarchy followed the imperative, starting with the authorities, the family - who are at the bottom of the pyramid - wouldn't have found themselves in their predicament in the first place. The categorical imperative indeed serves to prevent such situations. Furthermore, my opponent informs me only in the final round that I should defend my stance on abortion. even though I asked time and time again whether that is necessary. This is unsportsmanlike conduct. As for abortion, it is not murder because the majority of abortions are carried out in a phase where the foetus has no nervous system or awareness and is in no way more than a cell system resembling a tumor. Also, we cannot "suppose" that something that is not murder should be. Finally, my opponent offers an outlandish example, and then accuses me of offering an outlandish response. Interesting. As my opponent himself says, the imperative serves to be applies to the real world. Since there never was, and likely never will be an emergency situation such as the one my opponent mentions, there is no need to apply the categorical imperative to this example. INTERNAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVEMy opponent's first claim is that emotion is the underlying basis of motivation. I've never denied this. Actually, I've stood by that claim since the beginning of the debate. Motivation truly cannot be derived from thought. Motivation is derived from emotions, Kant accepts this as well. However, evaluation of said motivation and the actions it may encompass falls into the sphere of rational thought where Kant considers emotions to be a liability. Emotions determine motivation, thought evaluates it - this is Kant's theory. And it is most functional too, because only through true rationalization can one best evaluate their potential actions. Furthermore, my opponent offers an example of a world with no emotion. This is solely his idea and example, for I've never argued anything of the like. Justice and freedom are derived from human feelings. Their acquisition and application have always been derived from human thought, rationality and practicality; that is why laws, and indeed, the very discipline of politics, exist. Next, my opponent succeeds in contradicting himself very well. He first says that Kant intends us not to harm others and consider their well being, and then claims that this cannot be considered to be "the greater good" pertaining to these individuals. This is a direct contradiction. The statement that "Kant even goes as far to say the greater good is irrelevant because each individual is their own rational agent and no one should be manipulated to achieve the goals of another. " is false and another contradiction. Not manipulating someone and considering them as a factor is in itself minding the greater good. Finally, Kant's imperative was created to prevent situations where maxims would be contradicted - this appies to lying as well. But, say such an unsolvable situation indeed exists. Would one such situation contradict the entire imperative and its practicality and applicability in most situations; which I've proven. Definitely not.