Kant

"“the objectives we may have in acting, and also our actions' effects considered as ends and what motivates our volition, can give to actions no unconditional or moral worth…[this] can be found nowhere but in the principle of the will, irrespective of the ends that can be brought about by such action” (4: 400). This appears to say that moral rightness is not a function of the value of intended or actual outcomes." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I thank voters for taking the time to read this debate along with zgb1997 for participating and with that I will(after a short rebuttal) conclude this case.Normative Ethical TheoriesMy opponent completely misunderstands the objection that I placed in the third round, I was responding to the criticism of my objection to the categorical imperative rather than raising a new argument. You see I claimed that Kant never tells us what we should do only what we shouldn't. It tells us what permissible not what's right necessarily because Kant's imperative rarely eliminates all possible choices. In response my opponent said that it is a general guideline for ethical law. However this is simply flawed, I was making that argument in the third round.Now as I quoted at the top of the debate, if my opponent is correct in his statements that the principle of universality is supposed to be the guide for the categorical imperative than Kant has contradicted himself. He claims no actual or intended consequences matter, clearly if we are asking for a universal consequence than we are asking what the intended(or expected) consequences would be. His definition of universality contradicts Kant and therefore fails.My opponent makes the claim that no two people find themselves in the exact same situation. While this seems plausible normally in Kantian framework this is simply false. Everyone is making the exact same situation when voting because we are(under the categorical imperative) committed to abandoning circumstance. belief, and emotion. My opponent has backed off his initial claim that it's purely based off our personal beliefs(rightly so) therefore we know that the imperative can be applied under almost all circumstances and come out with the same solution. The individualism objection stands. My opponent has misunderstood my objection about practicality as well. All normative ethical theories need practical application or they are not complete as they never tell us what we should do. Only what we would do in a perfect world. There is no reason to even formulate ethical theories if this is the case.My opponent again tries to limit the categorical imperative to far less than Kant envisioned it however I will respond to this just the same. Kant tells us to act on these maxims in real life. He tells in the Groundwork that these principles are binding and furthermore compelling. If we are supposed to act on these in real life as Kant himself says than we must not be acting in a purely hypothetical world. Laws are applied universally and true, laws are applied relative to the certain circumstance they are nor relative to a persons personal beliefs. I cannot go murder somebody simply because I happen to believe murder would be a great universal occurrence. Laws do not have a subjective nature about them, they are objective regardless of belief. Morality guides these principles so my opponent cannot affirm relativistic Kantian theory while the categorical imperative. This is absolutely contradictory.Conflicts My opponent never answers the impracticality of examining means instead of ends which means that he contradicts himself because he admits impracticality of the categorical imperative(by not addressing it) because it doesn't consider human nature and affirms that the "best" moral theory is one that examines morality through human nature(round two). Objection stands.On my starving food example, he simply ignores it saying that it never could have happened if one had followed the maxims in the first place. But this seems irrelevant to the current situation, regardless of whether the family or the individual had followed the maxims prior this has no barring on the using the categorical imperative in the situation. Furthermore, even if it was relevant whether they followed it previously my opponent has provided no evidence they could have never, ever found themselves in that particular situation if they followed the categorical imperative. He then claims this cannot prove the categorical imperative wrong because it is hypothetically based. While I disagree with this line of reasoning, in this case my opponent is completely wrong because this situation in its very nature is hypothetical. So if my opponent cannot refute the objection than it disproves not only the practical but the theoretical basis for the imperative.On Abortion, he never justifies why Abortion isn't murder. But it doesn't matter whether its murder for the situation to work we simply assume that the person is killing a fetus(regardless of person hood status) or killing themselves. Instead of making a brief summary of why he doesn't think that abortion is murder he has conceded it therefore the objection stands.My opponent has made a truly outlandish claim regarding the "Saw" situations. My opponent claims Kant proposes that in a hypothetical world no emergency situation would exist. This would be peculiar theory indeed one that no ought follow since emergency situations happen all the time and any ethical theory must have some form of practical applicability.Internal problems with the categorical imperativeThe central basis for the theory is the thought that motivation is central basis for evaluating moral actions. What I am arguing is it is practically impossible to separate the two. Emotion is the underlying basis of motivation.My opponent doesn't realise the application of Kant's theory that he is explaining in his quote. Kant is saying that emotion isn't what determines choices it only affects human choices. I am arguing against this notion as motivation can't be derived from pure will(thought). There is no argumentation point about certain facts(most facts) but disputable facts always have emotional connection. Disputable facts are where we derive motivation, imagine a world of pure will and no emotion whatsoever. Purely conceptual notions, such as Justice or Freedom really do not exist because the only basis of argumentation is pure fact. Justice is arbitrary notion as is freedom without emotion. I think the opposite is true as well mind you. What would Justice be without justification for the need of such a concept? A mere feeling that has no bearing objectively. Thought cannot be separated from emotion even hypothetically. But Kant denies that emotion can be apart of a individuals decision making process when following the categorical imperative. This is a internal unrecoverable problem for categorical imperative.My opponent completely misunderstands what the second formulation means. The second formulation means you shouldn't treat people as mere means(in that you use them for your own purposes without regard to their interests. Treating them as a end means to take their well being into consideration. The point is you must not disregard other people completely. What you must do is try not to harm other rational agents in your own dealings. You need not consider the greater good as Jeremy Benthem might say. Kant even goes as far to say the greater good is irrelevant because each individual is there own rational agent and no one should be manipulated to achieve the goals of another. So if Kant is really saying that we should do what's best for everyone then he must admit that lying can be justifiable in some circumstances since lying can be best for all. This is yet another internal contradiction.ConclusionI am sorry but my opponent has failed to adequately defend or justify Kantian theory. Vote Con today.http://www.youtube.com...;