The categorical imperative vs. the principle of utility

My CaseThe principle of utility establishes that acts should be in accordance with what brings happiness or pleasure, instead of discomfort or pain. Acts should be determined by the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people. The Principle of Utility has two basic steps which apply towards the standards of one’s actions. [1]1. Pain & PleasureThe concepts of pain and pleasure are fundamental in a human’s life. Each of us has receptors in our brain which make us capable of feeling and distinguishing pleasure and pain. Good can be equated to what brings about happiness, while evil can be equated with suffering. Pain and pleasure can be measured by the quality of one’s experience, and by the quantity of people benefiting from the experience. 2. Action approvalActions can be approved or disapproved by the amount of pain or pleasure that they bring about. Therefore, consequences are essential to establishing the merit of an action. One cannot truly act in a neutral way because an action always has a reaction. A cause always has an effect. Consequences are intertwined with our actions. The principle of utility allows us to act in a way that will reach the desired outcome, not only for ourselves, but for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, the principle of utility is the most beneficial basis for our actions.Categorical Imperative supports Principle of UtilityUniversality can only be achieved by applying a certain amount of moral standards to an action. What one person thinks everyone should do very well could be different than what others think everyone should do. A heroin addict probably wishes that everyone should be on heroin. This would make life much easier for them. That doesn’t necessarily mean everyone should get doped up. In order to establish an ideal as being universal, we have to think about the moral ramifications of an action. This is established through rule-utilitarianism [2] which says that we should act in accordance to the rules of what is good. I ask my opponent if there are any universal laws for human conduct that are neutral rather than good in nature?RebuttalsPremise 1:I wouldn't necessarily say that argumentation is necessary for the justification of a proposition; although an act that presupposes argumentation is necessary: Logical thought. One can develop a plan without arguing for that plan. They cannot develop a plan without thinking or strategizing as a means of coming up with that plan. Acting upon that plan in and of itself is justification of the plan. Argumentation is only required when it conflicts with another person’s place in the proposition.My opponent says that denying the concept of arguing to justify an action is affirming the opposite of what you are arguing. Arguing against arguing naturally means that you are doing what you are denying; this is a clear contradiction of itself. How this contradiction transfers to any law in a universal way is unclear and not supported.Premise 2:My opponent has used circular reasoning to establish premise 2. He claims that lying is setting yourself up for failure because if everyone lied, then no one would believe anyone. This statement is justifying the categorical imperative by assuming its truth. Remember, the categorical imperative theory is to act upon what could be a universal law. Using universal law as an applier to the premise therefore does not proove its truth. We cannot affirm the truth of a premise to support a theory if the premise relies on the theory for its truth.But for the sake of the debate, lets apply his premise to the example he used. Imagine that no one in the world lied. Everyone would believe what they hear as truth. If you've ever seen a funny little movie called "The Invention of Lying"[3] you will see that living in a world void of lies gives great opportunity for one to achieve what they want through lying, because the liar will always be believed. The first liar told everyone a tale about a Creator who lived in the Sky; promising eternal bliss for those who treat each other kindly. This was a satire on the foundation of religion. Even though this was fictional, we can see that through a similar hypothetical situation, one would not be setting themselves up for failure if they acted against what was considered universal. They would be achieving their desired goal. My opponent has given no justification for why someone should not act against a universal law, or even what is required for a law to be universal.Opponent's Conclusion:My opponents tie in of the premises to the categorical imperative is that universalizability is a requisite to argumentation for justification. This is an assumption. Nowhere did my opponent show the significance of universalizability in relation to the justification of actions through argumentation. For instance, you can argue that you did something because it was the best option given your circumstances, even though it would be detrimental on a universal scale. The action that you took does not have to be universal in order for it to be the best choice for you. Say for example you are low on cash and winter is gearing up. You take a demanding job that is detrimental to your health in order to cover the electric bill to keep your family warm throughout the winter. It is not necessarily beneficial to take a job that is detrimental to ones health. You are committing to an action that can harm yourself, which could be considered, on a small scale, self-mutilation or suicide. If everyone were to put themselves at risk, most people would end up dead. A rich man would have no need to take a job that was detrimental to their health. Sacrificing your safety for the security of your family is justified, even though it is not appropriate on a universal scale.ConclusionHumans are complex and so are their decisions. What is justified for one is not always universal. Justification to actions is more suited to moral standards that we have created through our notions of good (pleasure) and bad (pain.) In fact, Universalizability can only be determined through what is good for humanity in whole. The principle of utility determines what actions are the best for the greatest amount of people, which extends to humanity. Therefore, the principle of utility determines categorical imperative.Sources:1. http://www.phil.cmu.edu...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://www.imdb.com...