Kant

I thank my opponent for presenting his exposition and will now offer my defence of Kant's categorical imperative through the refutation of my opponent's claims and issues.Without further ado, I shall begin.NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIESThe first issue my opponent points out is that the categorical imperative fails as a normative theory because it doesn't give precise guidelines as to how one should act - that is, rules actions out, but doesn't "rule any in".Kant's theory is normative in that it gives a general guideline for human behavior. That guideline encompasses a wide range of actions and doesn't necessarily rule any specific actions in or out. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." [1]This is the first and most used formulation of the categorical imperative. To show why this imperative is a viable ethical theory, we must subject the categorical imperative to deeper analysis, therefore I will split the first formulation into two parts:a) In a strict sense, the first formulation instructs a person to act the way they wish according their beliefs (also formulated as "be the change you wish to see"). This is a viable instruction - my opponent himself pointed out that there can be no strict guideline for specific situations and no rulebook that would successfully instruct human beings as to how they should act. Human beings are too diverse in comparison to one another and find themselves in too diverse situations for such a rule to exist. This is why Kant's imperative instructs people to act according to their underlying sense of morality. The main point of this stricter sense is to teach people not to abandon their beliefs and viewpoints; and to act accordingly in situations where there can be no definite solution.To refer to my opponent's example - we do not know what the man will or should do. It is up to the man to decide. However, he has one guideline: do as your morality and experience suggest. Rely on yourself. Kant's imperative is the best maxim to use due to the fact that it allows, and encourages, free individual thought and search for solutions.b) In a wider sense, the first formulation literally calls for a person to act in a way they wish would be a universal law. In practice, this means that an individual who finds themselves in a certain situation will use rational thought outside simple emotions and imagine countless situations the same as his. One must then ask themselves a question: "Should everyone, supposing they find themselves in a situation exactly the same as mine, act towards solution X, what would the universal consequence be?". This way an individual can balance between intuition, experience and rationality in the best possible way, allowing for the widest and most efficient range of solutions.Kant's imperative is, in fact, the best possible norm. It does not tell us exactly what we should do - to do so would be to restrict human nature. It rather gives us a guideline that points us to our very humanity.There is a difference between "speculation" and "thought". If one's ethical norms are only those that give exact solutions with no thought or intuition whatsoever, then those norms deserve to be challenges thoroughly.CONFLICTSMy opponent claims theories must have a practical application and offers the example of unitarianism.However, unitarianism and the categorical imperative function in similar fashion:UNITARIANISM: "Do so as to increase your happiness as much as possible."CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: "Do so as to enforce what you will would be a universal law."Both theories remain relative in respect to one's nature, predicament and viewpoints. Both give us a partially defined guideline according to which we should act. The "state of affairs" is an equally important factor in both principles.Furthermore, my opponent then claims Kant's imperative is conflictive due to the fact it is not clearly specified which standard one should use, and an example of stealing food is offered.However, rational thought is also to be employed:A situation where one must steal food to feed themselves must have a cause. One is first to weigh the relation between a cause and their predicament and then act. Also, this situation presupposes that the only way out is stealing food. If Kant's imperative had been followed in the hypothetical situation, there would be no such predicament where one would have to steal food - this example is flawed.Furthermore, my opponent's example about abortion is flawed. Abortion is not murder. I am aware that this is another matter entirely, but since this was one of the offered examples, it was my duty to refute it. I shall defend my stance on abortion if need be.INTERNAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVEThe first problem my problem sees within the imperative is the fact that it should motivate humans to act in a certain way, while not being attached to emotions.Here I must point out that the imperative calls for the only motivation to be human beliefs and intuition - not to let emotions bilnd one's sight and lead them to a wrong decision.The interpretation of the word "motive" is a matter of semantics. It is logical and obvious that motive in this case means a reason to act, and that reason stems from the categorical imperative alone.The only motivation, or reason to act, one would have is to produce the best possible effect in regard to everyone. This is the exact reason for the existence of ethical normatives.There is only one motivation, and it comes from the imperative per se.As for desires, they are in the sphere of imperfect duties [1]. When one has carried out their main duties according to the imperative, desires can be followed, and rewards from them reaped, as long as perfect duties are not violated.Furthermore, my opponent raises the question of the reason one would ever support the categorical imperative, stating that we cannot be sure that it is the main and best principle to use when one acts.However, there is not a single principle or rule of morality for which we can claim it is best with certainty. This leads us either to the conclusion that there is indeed no true morality, or the conclusion that the best and most true morality is the one that stems from human nature.Kant's imperative encourages the second conclusion. It encourages drawing conclusions from one's viewpoints.This is why it is a viable position.Finally, presupposing one does not expect perfect, definite solutions for every possible situation (a normative that attempts to offer those is thorougly flawed), Kant's imperative is functional. It was intended to direct human thought and decision-making, not control it wholly. When used as a simple guideline, a "reminder" of sorts, to act according to one's viewpoints and to always weigh the consequences on everyone, it is functional.Back to my opponent, whom I must commend on his debating skills. This was easily one of the hardest and most interesting replies I've had to write.SOURCE:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...