Moral motivism is more probable than consequence theory

Well, I do not know how my opponent bypassed the requirements I set. But I know he's knowledgeable in philosophy so I won't make a fuss about it and thank him for accepting. Case In order to demonstrate my case, let's take one consequentialist philosophy I mentioned earlier, utilitarianism. Utilitarianism posits that actions are good based on whether they increase or decrease the net-happiness, thus based solely on consequence. I will use utilitarianism for sake of demonstration but of course, my arguments could apply to any ethical philosophy. As stated, Kant was an advocate of motivism and made attacks on consequence theory. He writes "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualifications, except a good will." Consequence theory is irrational. It has little plausible to say about moral worth. The man who tortures babies for fun could be committing a morally good act while the man who gives food to the starving man out of compassion could be committing an immoral act. It would all be dependent on what random and unknowable consequences might occur from that one action. The same goes for things which would largely be considered ammoral, like riding your bike or poping a baloon. Simple facts like that make the theory immediately repellant but not just from emotional reasons. Consequentialism alleviates any rationality in moral choice. What if you are 100% justified in not knowing that the act you committed by moral motives, lead to negative consequences? It could not be deemed immoral, for as already stated, it was justified! It is completely irrational to say acts which were justified are immoral. Justification ties right into morality. For example, if all self-aware factors of my life point towards x being right while y is actually what is right, am I not justified in doing x? In fact, would it not be assumed that I would do x? If I did not do x, then I would be doing something contrary to what everything around me was telling was right, thus I would in fact be acting contrary to what seemed morally obvious. It would be irrational to not do x even if y were right. X would be the only rational and plausible choice from my limited perspective, thus I would be fully justified to do x. And to take that further, it would be more moral to do x than y, since doing x would be acting according to my moral conscience and knowledge, while y would be acting according to what none of my moral cognisance posited. Furthermore, I would strongly contend that knowledge is a prerequisite of morality. For, moral knowledge and awareness is what gives us moral free-will. It is why in the event of a court case, when a mentally ill person is on trial, we deal much differently than in the case of a mentally well person. We realize that factors irrelevant to his will influenced his actions and thus he is not, or not entirely, to blame. If a mentally challenged person were to slap you in your face solely due to his mental disabilities, we would not blame him but the disability. Mental disabilities influence moral actions just as knowledge disabilities do. If I have no way of knowing what the right choice is, I am not morally responsible for which choice I make. If I however, know which choice is right and which choice is wrong, I am morally responsible. And if I believe one choice to be right and the other wrong and act on motive, I am also responsible. I believe it to be a rather inescapable point. Suppose you're at the beach with your friend. Your friend buys an ice-cream cone, and you suggest they walk down to the rocks. On their way there, your friend stumbles over a small hole that he didn't see and drops his ice-cream. He proceeds to blame you, his reasons being that if you hadn't suggested they go to the rocks, he would have never stepped in the hole and thus would have never dropped his ice-cream cone. It is inarguable that your actions lead to him dropping the ice-cream, but are his complaints rightly directed at you? Are you really to blame? I'm guessing that anyone put into the situation would be indignant that your friend would actually be blaming you for something that happened entirely unforeseeable and out of your control. However, taken consequence theory, you would be committing an immoral act by suggesting they go to the rocks (again assuming utilitarianism for sake of debate). Taking this principle, responsibility of actions are entirely out of the equation, only the latter consequences. This is clearly fallacious thinking. Am I not not only morally accountable for an action if I am responsible? As Kant argues, a person who keeps promises by accident is not acting morally. In the same way, a person who accidentally causes happiness should not be considered a moral person. He is only acting morally if he understands that he should keep his promise. Moral acts, if they exist, should be based upon whether the individual understands the nature of the act. By consequence theory, even killing a homeless man for his blanket, could turn out to be a morally good act, and stopping the murder could be a morally bad one.I'll hand it over to con.