LD Debates

First my opponent's case, then I'll move on to my own. His observation that the resolution does not ask for an action or inaction with better intentions, effects or consequences is basically correct, except for a small issue that I'll speak on later this round. His value is the same as mine, so we can move on. His criterion also is very similar to mine. I agree with his criterion. Kant did say we should focus on whether the action is moral, not the consequences. What Kant also included in his theory however was that it was a good will, or good intention that justified an action. This contradicts his observation, so you either must drop his observation, or you have to drop his criterion. Contention 1: Killing is immoral according to Kant, yes. But the key is your intention was not to kill, but to save many innocent lives. The death of the one innocent person was a consequence of your act of saving lives. To illustrate this, imagine you are a doctor, and you are running a hospital. In one room there are five innocent patients, unfortunately in the air duct above that room there was a carbon monoxide leak. You can either let the five die, or save them by redirecting the gas. Kantianism would maintain that you redirect the gas. Unfortunately, as a consequence, the redirected gas kills one patient in another room. You killed one innocent person to save more innocent people, but even Kantianism justifies this action, because the death was a CONSEQUENCE, and consequences do not affect morality. My opponent contradicts himself. Moving on to my case. My opponent accepts my value. My opponent tries to put a turn on my criterion by claiming that Kant would not accept the act of killing an innocent. I agree, but as I showed earlier, Kant would not judge an action because of its consequences. He would judge it on my intention to attempt to save lives, which unfortunately resulted in the death of one person. Kant would accept this. The intention matters. I already read the quote, but I'll read it again "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." He basically says the consequences don't matter, but my intention to do good and follow the Categorical Imperative to save lives was good, so my action is moral, even though it has a bad consequence. Contention 1: My opponent continues to ignore what I'm saying. Killing is wrong. Yes I agree with that. But the intention was not to kill. The intention was to save lives. The death of that one person was a CONSEQUENCE, and as my opponent and I have both said countless times, the consequence does not determine morality. It is the intention of the person to do the right thing and follow the Categorical Imperative. If I don't intend to kill, but I do, Kant will not judge me. My opponent has me being judged for an action that I did not mean to commit. I meant to save lives. This is admirable. The death of the one person is a consequence. We cannot negate the resolution based on a consequence. I urge an affirmative ballot.