Kant

NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIESThe first objection to the categorical imperative my opponent offers in this round is that the universality of Kant's imperative, combined with, as my opponent puts it, its supposition that there is always a correct decision, makes the imperative flawed as a normative theory. This is where we, once again, must use logic and rationality - which I've pointed out many times during the last round. To begin with, I will deal with the problem of universality. Universality means supposing a situation in which many people find themselves in the same predicament as the person in question (person applying the imperative). In that case, said person can contemplate outside of a purely emotional sphere and make a decision that is more rational through the question that I've already stated in the last round: "Should everyone, supposing they find themselves in a situation exactly the same as mine, act towards solution X, what would the universal consequence be? ". Now, there exists no such world where everyone would find themselves in the exact same situation as said individual, and by extension, there is no world where universality can be applied in practice. Thus, complaints towards practicality are unfounded. Kant's universality is hypothetical and based on a hypothetical world. And in that sphere, it is correct and applicable. Due to the fact that there is no practical application, there can be no practical flaw. On the other hand, the hypothetical sphere falls perfectly under Kant's universality and extends one's range of thought. Now, onto the claim about correct decisions:There is, relatively, always a correct decision. That is indeed what Kant states. However, since universality in itself is hypothetical, we cannot logically claim that Kant presupposes a definite correct decision for every single individual. On the contrary, based on the predicament an individual finds themselves in, the state of affairs etc. (I've explained this already), there can only be a correct, or better said, most correct, decision for each and every individual respectively. Due to the general hypothetical and relative nature of this problem, the claims my opponent makes about the flawed connection between universality and decisions are unfounded. Next, my opponent quotes Kant's statement about the general applicability of law. I stand fully by that statement. However, laws have always been applied in different ways, in relativity to a certain predicament. Kant indeed claims that laws are always applicable, and they are - but they are relative in respect to the state of affairs. A general moral code is in this case basically the same as a general guide to ethics, due to what I've explained. As to what Kant's question really is - the only way one can actually interpret the first formulation is in the shape of belief (do what your beliefs suggest) and in the shape of a law (which is what my opponent himself quotes from Kant's work - suppose universality of law). The second part requires the question which I've stated because of the relative nature of the problems Kant's imperative tries to solve. CONFLICTSMy opponent first mentions the issue about decisions that was brought up in the first part of his exposition as well, therefore I see no need to refute it again. Now, onto examples. The situation my opponent presupposes, indeed, its very existence, contradicts the principles of humanity and morality that my opponent himself mentions. Had these maxims been followed in the first place, there would be no such predicament. Furthermore, in a situation before said predicament, there would be no contradiction of maxims - this is what Kant wanted to achieve. Kant's imperative exists to avoid such conflicting situations and prevent their existence in the first place. The situation we are talking about is a result of failure to obey the imperative this debate revolves around and is in itself irrelevant. Even should we forsake that level, universality cannot practically be in a contradiction due to its hypothetical nature. As for abortion, I'd really like my opponent to state whether or not I am required to defend my stance on the issue, since he does mention a certain "prejudice" in the last round. The second example, about a "Saw-type" situation, is extremely surreal, and it touches the state of affairs I've explained when refuting the first example. The reason that a "so-called" problem with such situations exists is that the following of Kant's imperative supposes that there are no situations of the kind. INTERNAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVEMy opponent first talks about emotion being a motivation for peforming an action. To be able to talk about this, we must separate emotion from reason, as well as their applications. Kant does not negate the fact that emotion is the underlying reason that one wants to perform an action. His imperative only asserts that when one is trying to reason as to how to perform said action, emotions should be excluded - here is a quote from Kant's Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals:"Human choice, however, is a choice that can indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore of itself (apart from an acquired proficiency of reason) not pure but can still be determined to actions by pure will. " [1]As we can clearly see, Kant admits that choices (reasons for acting) can be affected by emotional impulses. However, he claims that the way of performing a choice should be determined by pure will (thought). The wide spectre of thought of hypothetical universality offered by the first formulation serves to help achieve that. Furthermore, it is false that Kant's imperative claims that it doesn't matter what is best for everyone. The second formulation of Kant's imperative is as follows:"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. " [2]This formulation absolutely contradicts the claims made by my opponent. It represents a respectable moral standard which I believe we can all agree on. Also, this touches the problem of ends and means my opponent discusses. Even if humanity does look mostly towards ends, the rule stated by the second formulation that humanity itself should be an end shows us that Kant does not forsake general well-being. I will have this also represent my justification of the second formulation. Furthermore, as I've explained many times during my exposition, universality helps to achieve morality through the widening of the sphere of thought - I do not deem it necessary to explain this claim once again. Finally, Kant did indeed wish his theory to be universally applicable. However, universal applicablity of anything and everything in the modern world (even when speaking of things that we would most definitely agree are created to be generally applicable) requires flexibility relative to the state of affairs. Kant, indeed, never rules this out - that supports my claims made throughout this whole round. I've managed to answer my opponent's complaints, and by extension, solidify my case supporting Kant's imperative - reinforcing the idea that it is indeed viable. Back to my opponent. SOURCES:[1] "Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals" - Immanuel Kant, p. 213, 214[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...