The categorical imperative is a preferable ethical system to utilitarianism

For those who do not know here is my interpretation of the categorical imperative(CI):If you feel something[emotion[ is necessarily something[either object in the situation, or potential gain/loss], your action in this situation must be based on this and the only further reasoning regarding morality should be any feelings you may have regarding other 'something's in the situation.This is my interpretation of UT(UT):If something benefits the majority of people in a situation, or at the very least alleviates their potential suffering, the benefit and suffering of the minority must definitely be ignored when deciding one's action in the situation.Now, when you look at CI at face value it seems rather like a child's moral reasoning whereas UT seems severely sophisticated and almost flawless in its capacity to help one determine what is right and wrong to do in any given situation. In fact, the face-value basis is what I predict Con's entire case will be based on. Yet, when looking deeper into the 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of certain actions in the context of the situations in which they are carried out, one realizes that in reality very critical errors in judgement can come form having a system any system that would claim that it has a perfect, objective basis for morality.Utilitarians tend to blabber on about how great their morality is simply because the action being done will always be selected as 'good' as opposed to 'evil' by the majority of any given situation. However, the fact is that ballots cannot always be handed out before deciding what to do in a situation and the 'majority' of a situation may be of a totally different outlook than those of the majority of the world... Which creates huge problems as to what 'majority' is to begin with.Gang rape would indefinitely be seen as moral in UT, for instance.The common example of UT is that there is a train racing to smash five people to pieces but if a lever is pulled that kills only one person instead, you would have saved five people but now you are responsible for that one person's death and suffering prior to it. The real issue is how readily Utilitarians say they'd definitely pull that lever and yet in a similar example suddenly they squander about like bipolar sufferes fluctating between a definite yes or no. This common alternative is what I call the 'psychopath's paradox'. This is because psychopaths are suddenly more sure they'd save lives in this alternative than most utilitarians, capable of empathy, are[1]. This is where there's a fat guy/girl standing next to you ona bridge and if you push them over the train would hit their big body and slow down in time to not kill the five people at the end. A given criterion to the situation is that you are not fat enough to stop the train if you were to suicide leap onto the tracks instead (which, if it wasn't there would reveal how unsuicidal and hypocritical Utilitarians are even more so than the psychopath's paradox does). Psychopathic utilitarians, who are resorting to a rational basis for their false set of morals don't even bat an eyelid before saying 'yes I'd push that fat guy/girl over the edge'. However, Utilitarians capable of feeling the inherent 'rightness' and 'wrongness' in a situation suddenly fluctuate between UT and CI. This is because CI is the innate moral basis for all humans before they are brainwashed into other pseudo-intellectual bases for morality.In actual fact the situation, for a true believer of CI, would not be enough to decide and hence is why some adherent of CI opt out and say they'd let the five die in both situations because that way they had no responsibility in the situation whatsoever while other adherents of Ci say the opposite or somwhere in between (I address this confusion later). Nonetheless, since people who purely use CI are in a minority since it's only what children tend to use to decide moral decisions and most learn some 'code' (Dexter reference[2]) form which to decide rightness form wrong. This is actually ironic because for those who follow a religion, what they end up doing is thinking they have a higher code of some kind but in actuality all religions are based on the CI of the God or their innate soul's 'compass' of what is right and wrong. This is also, uncoincidentally, why the majority of the world is actually non-Utilitarian[3] and hence the majority would suffer more if forced to convert to UT but remain more pleased if they could keep their current mindset in tact. This is one of many ways in which UT begins to dig its own grave as a moral code.Now, I'm going to bring up source [2] again as I discuss the issue of psychopaths, sociopaths and those who are in capable of feeling an innate 'right' and 'wrong' and hence for whom CI is incompatible as a moral system. Con will probably argue that such people may indeed become maniacs and justify what they are doing saying they innately feel it to be right to rape and such. The sad thing is I have no rebuttal to this and toally concede that psychopaths relying on CI are truly dangeorus and volatile. On the other hand, I would also add that no psychopath truly follows a code (Dexter is a fictional character that is very unrealistic). Nonetheless, If a psychopath did truly abide by UT to the hilt they'd begin to discover that UT is just CI with a lot of cancerous mutations latched onto it. At the basis of UT is the notion that suffering has to be 'bad' and pleasure/well-being has to be 'good'. While I would agree this is a reasonable basis I would say that the only way that UT could be considered a valid ethical system in the first place is if one uses CI to determine that making a person suffer is bad to begin with and vice versa. When they have used CI to determine that suffering=bad and well-being=good then they can go on to the next step of asserting that the well-being of the majority and suffering of the majority should always be the ultimate factor in making a decision based on moral reasoning. Thus, if a truly rational individual, incapable of empathy, were to strictly stick to utilitarianism to determine what is 'right' and/or 'wrong' their lack of empathy in the first place would render UT futile as they'd require CI to determine what the 'bad' outcome for the majority is to begin with.Now comes the knockout punch, so to speak, to completely demolish the Con case. The final angle to attack the resolution on is that since CI is so adaptable/malleable one can essentially use Ci to simultaneously say that rape is good and bad. Since emotions can fluctuate at any given time and mixed emotions of conflicting natures can exist in a human's psyche, it would mean that someone relying on CI to determine what is good and bad could end up completely incapable of ever ending at a conclusion whereas UT invariably would lead them to a concrete answer despite internal conflict. The way that I am going to counter this will seem so out-of-this-world as it is not directly addressing the argument at all but is rather like Con going for a jab to my face and me tickling then under the arm so they can't jab me in the first place. I am essentially going to say 'yeah, CI can end you up at totaly flux as to what is right and worng if you're experiencing mixed emotions about a situation but guess what, buddy, UT has such a greater flaw that that doesn't even matter'. Here is why UT will always lose to CI regardles sof the fact that Ci can lead to confusion where UT has clarity, it's because UT undeniably makes every adherent of it loathe it simultaneously by the simple fact that it forces you to label 'suffering' as a bad thing to give/receive and 'pleasure/well-being' as a good thing to give/receive. You see, ladies and gentlemen, there is no-one on earth, not even the most suicidal nor masochistic person, that would base their morality on the notion that to suffer is bad and to fair well is good and then say 'okay make me suffer for the many as my well-being gets diminshed'. This is like saying that 'red is good and blue is bad' and then saying 'okay, turn me red if it means others can be bluer'. That would essentially be stating that one would want evil to come to them for the sake of good ot come to others, which in turn means that htey are accepting that the evil coming to them is inherently 'good', if the evil coming to them is suddenly 'good' then that ends them up at a far greater situation fo flux than CI ends its adherents at.I think that what I just wrote may be confusing so I am going to give a syllogism to represent it:A= goodB = badAC = actionP1: In CI, AC is A or B based on one's feelings at the time.P2: People can feel different things about the same situation.P3: P1+P2 leave a person in a state of confusion.P4: In UT AC is A or B based on the notion that suffering must be bad and pleasure/well-being must be good.P5: An adherent of UT would be pleased and perceive a well-being to their moral stance if they were to make themselves suffer for the sake of a majority.P6: P5 while P4 means that the person is simultaneously perceiving evil as good.P7: It is less terrible for a moral system to confuse its adherents than to directly overlap good and evil and thus implode the entire concept of morality altogether.Thank you to my opponent for starting this debate and thank you to the audience for reading thus far.Sources:[1] http://www.youtube.com... first video to the right.[2] http://dexter.wikia.com...[3] http://www.pewforum.org...