Pick your own debate - 1E

My opponent has finally responded after his previous forfeit. No worries, I'm sure it was for legitimate reasons. How the voters take that is out of my hands, so let's just have a good debate. And since he has refuted my points in the same linear pattern I have, I shall respond in the same manner. ==================== Kant's Categorical Imperative - My opponent's lack of backed up argument ==================== To be honest, I am quite confused by my opponent's response. Has he even given an argument? His argument basically composed of a claim that wasn't backed up, of him basically stating the opposite of my argument. All he did was simply state that "no the categorical imperative isn't right, utilitarianism is". Let me illustrate what I mean: >>>"You must realize here that the end is saving citizens' lives."<<< But why? >>>"If the end is saving many lives, then one is completely justified in using the means of one terrorist's temporary psychological well being."<<< But why? >>>"The end completely justifies the means."<<< BUT WHY? You see voters, my opponent has given no reason in his argument for why utilitarianism is the correct ethical system rather than deontology, in this case Kantian ethics. He has given no philosophical reasoning for why his ethical system is superior to mine; he has not shown any flaw in my reasoning. When philosophers argue about ethics, they don't simply state that one is better than the other, they give reasons - something my opponent has yet to do. Which brings me to my next point: ==================== Kant's Categorical Imperative - List of reasons why CI is correct and Utilitarianism is wrong ==================== So that being said, I will hereby give a list of A) reasons why the categorical imperative is justified and B) why utilitarianism (besides the fact that the CI is correct) is wrong. By doing this, I will effectively show why torture is immoral, since it would be violating the CI. A1. Kant sought to place his ethical system on the foundations on something sturdy - built on reason. In fact, he sought to do something that is seemingly contradictory, a synthetic a priori imperative[1]. He does this by reflecting on the idea of an abstraction itself, and this is how the CI is formulated. Essentially, his ethical system is one that states that your actions will be bound to reason - a sturdy foundation for his ethical work. And since we all have practical reason, it stands that no human can be used as a means. A2. CI gives a clear cut idea for morality. True, while some things may seem intuitively "wrong" (like never lying), this does not mean his ethical system is wrong. Just because it "feels" or "seems" bad, doesn't mean it is. In fact, this would be committing the fallacy of emotional appeal unless there is something substantive to say otherwise. A3. While it may seem impractical at first, this does not mean it can be overcome or that it should even be a reason to do otherwise. Should we simply do something immoral because being moral is IMPRACTICAL? Should I be allowed to murder because not killing my neighbor is impractical for me? Impracticality has nothing to do with morality, and it shouldn't impede it. **Now the downsides of utilitarianism** B1. Why should everyone's happiness, as utilitarians have commonly states, matter? Why should YOUR happiness matter to me? This is the problem that people like John Stuart Mill have famously not overcome - the jump from one's own happiness to the aggregate happiness of everyone else's. As Mill famously commits the fallacy of composition[2], I wonder how my opponent can overcome this problem. B2. How the heck do we estimate how much happiness is generated? How do we quantitatively measure it? It stands to reason that it is almost impossible to measure how much an action can affect people in both distance and time - just look at chaotic systems[3] for example. B3. How do measure how much happiness an act can produce? This coincides with the previous point. If one says that upholding the CI is impractical, then just WAIT when you get into utilitarianism. Every act isn't just impractical, it's virtually impossible. B4. How does utilitarianism deal with the "utility monster"[4]? A thought experiment created by the philosopher Robert Nozick, a utility monster is someone who can turn his own utility MUCH more efficient than others from one amount of "resource" - which in this case would be an act that generates happiness. Basically, this monster can become much more "happier" than others from the same amount of resource. This leads to dire consequences, like sacrificing the needs and even lives of others for the sake of the utility monster. What seemed like a just and egalitarian system of ethics turns out to be otherwise. ==================== Practicality of water boarding ==================== Just because we have a few success cases from water boarding does NOT mean it is overall effective. Many times, scaring people with torture will lead to false information. Why? It's very simple and almost a rule of nature - humans, like any animal, want to survive. So when they are being tortured, they will say almost anything to make it stop, many times being false information[6]. This is why most C.I.A. Special Activites Division (kind of like spies) and U.S. special operations units see it as a poor interrogation method[6]. With U.S. forces being misled by such information, and at the same time violating rights, they are committing two big nono-s. A waste of time and immoral actions produce nothing good. So yes, while there a few lucky cases, it doesn't prove the overall effetiveness of water boarding, let alone most torture procedures. ==================== Conclusion ==================== And there you go. I have listed the reasons for why the CI is correct and why Utilitarianism is wrong. Even if my argument against the practicality of water boarding fails, this doesn't mean I have lost the debate. My opponent still needs to refute my ethical arguments against water boarding - unless he wants to say that we should violate morals anyway. VOTE PRO. ---References--- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. http://www.imho.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. Scruton, Roger. Modern philosophy an introduction and survey. New York: Allen Lane Penguin P, 1995. 6. http://science.howstuffworks.com...