Kant

Evidently he knows Kant well. Normative Ethical Theories My opponent attempts to justify the first formulation of the categorical imperative and (I think this is a flawed justification) he has failed to justify the second formulation. In order to understand the categorical imperative it is necessary to have both formulations justified. My opponent claims that the categorical imperative is a general guideline for human behavior. However this seems rather false given Kant’s own work. If the categorical imperative is true than the ideas of the categorical imperative one finds that the principles contained within are universal, making its possible applications universal, unlike many other criteria. Hence, we can see that Kant means this application is universal. This in of itself would not be enough to refute the guideline principle my opponent holds, however combined with Kant’s notion that there is a correct decision for every circumstance, the categorical imperative cannot be seen as mere guideline but as a stone cold moral law. As many people, including S Peter Davis, recognize Kant’s law as binding regardless of belief or circumstance. Therefore, Kantianism is not only binding on everyone but it implicitly denies individualism. No longer must we incorporate diversity into our lives, for we all must make the same decisions and thus eventually live the same lives. As Wilhelm Ropke recognizes in his treatise “A Humane Economy”: “The individual means less and less, mass and collectivity more and more—and so the net of servitude which hems development becomes even denser, more closely meshed, and inescapable” I should make a clarification Kant in his formulation wants us to follow a very specific procedure in order to find out if the action is permissible. However this doesn’t have to do with belief other than the initial maxim, but no matter of your beliefs you are required to recognize them as false if they are contrary to the categorical imperative. However even if my opponents alternative Kantian theory he has burdened himself with the relativity of values. This obviously not true especially if we are talking about Kant “If we consider the idea of law in general, moreover, its fundamental feature is universality… Law is applicable without exception” (The Questions of Philosophy Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative). Kant clearly doesn’t believe in my opponents’ interpretation of his own imperative. Furthermore, if my opponents’ conception of values is correct all actions could be justified. The supposed higher principles would just be “gift-wrapped” versions of the same beliefs that the wrapper held. In terms of point b, the question my opponent asks us to ask ourselves is invalid. I would ask a clarification on what Kant is asking since that is what my opponent is supposing. The fact is Kant’s imperative is supposed to (according to him) give us a moral code rather than a general guide to ethics. Kantianism doesn’t follow the rules in which my opponent seems to suggest. Because of this my criticism is valid especially since he hasn’t really attacked it only the criteria I used to judge which was solidly refuted. Conflicts In terms of practical application, Kant fails for one main reason, I would’ve mentioned this last round but for lack of space I wasn’t able to expand this point, the primary reason for the impracticability of Kantian position is due to the denial of human nature. The basic premise (as mentioned before) that underlies Kant’s philosophy is that there is a correct decision in every situation. The assumption behind this is that people are identical in the rationality. Because human behavior dictates a teleological approach (ends-based) toward morality, moral questions are answered through empirical experience. Kant never provides a way around basic human nature. In terms of my stealing food example, my opponent unfortunately has not adequately refuted this. He seems to claim that if the hypothetical imperative had been followed then there would be no predicament. The problem is that we have to hold two different contrary things according to Kant. The Universality maxim contradicts the Humanity maxim, in that there are situations in which we cannot weigh the cause. Weighing the cause of starvation has no bearing on the ethical status of stealing food for starving children. In terms of Abortion this isn’t the only contemporary example that can be given. Simply asserting that the Abortion issue isn’t relevant should be proven or rejected as mere prejudice. Another example of this is if someone was trapped in a “Saw” type situation where you can either save yourself and kill someone else or kill yourself and save someone else again Kant is silent on the conflict of perfect duties and emergency situations. Internal Problems with the Categorical Imperative The problem with my opponents response is it fails to see the central point of the objection. Emotion is generally what motivates people. Or at least this is what incites higher intellectual standards for people to follow. While I suppose I could justify why murder is wrong objectively the primary reason I believe Murder is wrong is because of the rush of feelings I get from murder. This is the motivation for my intellectual condemnation of murder. Emotion is very much intertwined with the very nature of motivation. So it is internally contradictory to affirm motivation without emotion. If we look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs we find further evidence of the emotional security needed to support intellectual stability. My opponent says that the only motivation is one that would produce the best for everyone in the categorical imperative. This is absolutely contradictory to the categorical imperative to assert this. The categorical imperative is not a consequentialist theory in fact it is the exact opposite of this type of theory. The imperative tells us that it doesn’t really matter what’s the best for everyone, as long as we fulfill our duty and follow the universal law. My opponent hasn’t answered the objection regarding desires because I do not think he understands what I am trying to say. I am saying that there is no real universal motivation because we all seek different ends and for different reasons. Desires often change motivations entirely as noted above. Kant tries to rule actions impermissible or permissible however no action can ever be ruled either way because it seems queer to think there is never a good reason to do some action. If this is true than Kant not only violates typical deontological ethics but also general normative ethics as well. On my objections to the reasoning behind Kantian theory and the formulations he failed to justify the second formulation, so something must be flawed about Kant(as my opponent refused to address this). One the first formulation he seems to claim that there is no single moral rule (including the categorical imperative) and that Kant encourages us to think one that is true is based off of human nature. I have two problems with this line of reasoning, the first is that Kant’s imperative doesn’t seem to align with human’s tendency to focus on ends rather than means so if the second conclusion is true perhaps we should move to a more consequentialist type theory. The second problem with this reasoning is that it fails to justify the connection between universality and moral truth value. Kant intended that his imperative could be applied in any circumstance without contradiction. He has undoubtedly failed, as he wasn’t simply going for a guideline, he wanted a solid non-negotiable moral theory that held up regardless of circumstance. Viable is a funny word, it means to be capable of working successfully, and so far Kant’s theory has shown to be anything but.