Kant's catagorical imperitive is superior to J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism

I will open by presenting my own case, than move to my opponent's case. To open, I will define utilitarianism: According to John Stuart Mill, util holds that actions are right in proportion as then tend to promote happiness, wrong as then tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarianism is the supreme framework for these reasons: 1. All good ends with utility. In his book, john Stuart mill makes the bold claim that the reason we want or do anything "good" is to increase happiness or to decrease pain. This may seem far fetched at first, but if you think about it, it is very true. For example: Why do we want security? To reduce pain. Why do we want rights? to increase happiness and to reduce pain. Why do we want to save lives? To increase potential happiness. Why do we not want to go to hell? (Religion doesn't apply) because hell is the embodiment of pain. Why do we want peace? Because with peace comes happiness and less pain. I can give any number of further examples, but I believe I have proven my point. Basically, ALL GOOD is good because it augments utility. 2. Utility cannot produce bad. When arguing utilitarianism, one encounters a plethora of very similar and very flawed arguments. These arguments generally go: "So, you would say it was just to kill 49 people if 51 said they wanted to?" NO. If you look to my definition, you can clearly see that increasing pain is wrong, and, if this was your only choice, doing nothing would end with more good. 3. Even without predictive powers, one must look to utilitarianism. This is the most prevalent argument against utility. That you can't tell the future. However, if everyone were to truly follow the utilitarian principles to the best of their ability, it would end with an increase in utility. People know what causes pain, and, will when possible, try to avoid these situations and avoid putting others in those situations. No moral framework can be perfectly implemented, and utilitarianism, although right, is no different in this aspect. Even if it cannot be predicted, one must simply try to the best of their ability. I will now attack my opponent's framework: Because my opponent failed to actually define the Categorical Imperative, I will supply the definition from Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: "One ought never to act except in such a way that they can also will that their maxim should become a universal law" For those of you judging, this basically says that people should only act in ways that can be upheld as moral laws. (For example, if I try to justify killing in anger, I would have to say that in all cases, killing because of anger is justified). 1. Kant looks to utilitarianism to discern universality of maxims. A major flaw in Kant's principle, is that it cannot by itself, tell what should and shouldn't be universal laws. Because of this lack, Kant actually uses utilitarianism. Quote (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals): A man is himself flourishing, but sees others who have to struggle with great hardships (and whom he could easily help); and he thinks 'what does it matter to me? Let every one be as happy as heaven wills or as he can make himself; I won't deprive him of anything; I won't even envy him; only I have no wish to contribute anything to his well being or to his support in distress. Now admittedly if such an attitude were a universal law of nature, mankind could get on perfectly well. But although it is possible that a universal law of nature could subsist in harmony with this maxim, yet it is impossible to will that such a principle should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will which decided in this way would be in conflict with itself, since, many a situation might arise in which the man needed love and sympathy from others, and in which, by such a law of nature sprung from his own will, he would rob himself of all hope of the help he wants for himself. " This quote gives a concrete example of how Kant relies on the principle of utilitarianism to justify a universal law. In this case, he shows that such a universal law would bring pain to the man, and because of this, it cannot be upheld. THIS IS UTILITARIANISM. Another example is a man who lies (promises to do something w/o intent to do it) in order to escape a sticky social situation. By making this universal, he claims that: it would make promising and the purpose of promising itself impossible. Again, this would make life more painful because there would be no way to trust anyone. 2. Kant's Categorical Imperative does not always lead to good. Take the classic train example: You see 5 people walking down the tracks, and see a train coming that they do not notice. Now, you find that (somehow, doesn't matter how) the only way to stop the train is to sacrifice another innocent life to save the lives of the 5 others. Kant would say this was wrong. While, instead of killing one person, you would end up killing 5. Another example would be during the Holocaust: You are harboring Jews in your basement, and, the army comes and asks: "are you harboring Jews in your basement?" By the Categorical imperative, your only moral answer would be "Yes". You can see by these examples, that the categorical imperative cannot always achieve good, while, if you look to my support of utilitarianism, it cannot achieve bad. Because of this, utilitarianism is clearly the superior framework. -------- Onto my opponent's case My first remark must be that instead of talking about the categorical imperative, my opponent tries to talk only about deontology in general. (Which, for the judges, is means based morality) He FAILS to even define his side of the case. Because of this, I would urge that all of his Deon arguments be thrown out. 1. There is an intrinsic good, if you look to my support of util; ALL GOOD is only good because it increases happiness and decreases pain. 2. It is not mis-represented, the reason anything IS good is because it augments utility. There is no circular logic here, just good is good because it increases util. Happiness is NOT arbitrary. We all know what happiness feels like, and what pain is. We also all know that in most circumstances, others will react the same way (in lesser or greater degrees) to the same things that make us happy/unhappy. Because of this, it is very easy to see that we shouldn't do things to others that make us unhappy, and should try to increase the overall happiness. This is the way the world works, think about it. B. On this point, you can simply Cross-apply my 3 supporting util, that we don't need to be able to predict the future in order to produce util. Furthermore, you can look to my previous analysis on why happiness is not arbitrary to see that we do in fact know what happiness is. And, on the swimming pool scenario, you should have looked first. Clearly this would have increased utility even more; thinking about what others will do also helps. (Lifeguard) Basically, if one were to actually think about the morality of the action for a fraction of a second before acting, this would not even be an issue. C. Yes, there is. If I stab you, you feel pain. If I congratulate you, you feel happy. Even if we cannot measure these things, we must at all times try to minimize pain while maximizing happiness. Furthermore, in his book "Utilitarianism" John Stuart Mill states that if we are deciding between two seemingly equally utility-providing actions, we must look to those who have experienced both in order to discern the just course of action. D. UTIL REQUIRES NO SACRIFICE. If everyone were to follow this principle, pain would be being minimized, and no one would need to suffer. E. util does not justify Bad(slaveetc)MUST MINIMIZE PAIN