Resolution: Ulilitarianism is a superior moral theory to Kantianism.

Resolution: Utilitarianism is a superior moral theory to Kantianism.I thank my opponent for participating in this debate and without further ado let’s begin. General Reasons to think Utilitarianism is True, and Kantianism isn’t: It seems obvious that given a choice between performing an action or adopting a policy that will lead to a better situation, and doing something that will lead to a worse situation, it always is right to do what will lead to the better situation. Furthermore, it would seem that the best situation is the one with the most goodness in it, no matter what goodness turns out to be. Think about a bunch of things that would be morally wrong for me to do: punching you, stealing your money, making a promise and not keeping it, for instance. What do all of these have in common that makes them all wrong? The one most obvious thing that they all have in common is that they all harm people(i.e. make them unhappy). Also think of a bunch of good things that I could do: giving to charity, saving someone's life, helping an elderly person across the street. Again what most obvious thing do these have in common that make them right? They all seem to contribute to welfare of people and make them happy. It doesn't seem like an accident that the right things tend to make people happier and that the wrong things decrease happiness. Well, Utilitarianism says it isn't in accident. It says the right actions are right because they tend to promote happiness and help people, likewise wrong actions are wrong because they tend to hurt people and make them unhappy. Obviously, it is helping and harming people (making them happy and unhappy) that is the basis for morality. As long as one accepts that it is best to help people as much as possible OR harm them as least as possible then seems one has a good reason to accept Utilitarianism. A more concrete way of thinking about the issue is to consider an example. Imagine that you have several tickets to a concert. You have to decide whom it would be best to take with you to the concert. But how do you decide? Some choices would obviously be wrong. You don't want to invite someone who will hate the music at the concert. You also don't want to invite people who cannot stand each other. Why are these bad choices? Obviously because they make people unhappy. It tells you who you should invite as well. It tells you to invite people who would enjoy the concert and be happy.In general, normative ethical theories tell us what we should do. In more simplistic terms one wants a normative theory to tell them “What should I do?”. Any theory that fails to do this can be seen as incomplete and in need of revision. Certainly there are qualifiers for being a normative ethical theory just as other things, such as an attorney or accountant or a science degree. X cannot be called Y if X doesn’t have the essential properties (or the things that make Y) of Y. Kantian theory is supposed to rule out actions (making them permissible or impermissible depending on the corresponding actions) however it doesn’t necessarily rule any in. There are possible cases in which all but one action are ruled impermissible by the categorical imperative. But these are few and far in between. More often Kant’s theory simply says what we shouldn’t do not what we should. I give a brief example: Imagine if a person has promised to pay back a wealthy miser, within a month, a loan of say 2,000 thousand dollars, which he knows that he will be unable to repay on time, but which he will repay eventually. He promised to repay the loan in that amount of time because he would have been unable to get the money if he hadn’t made that promise. He needs the money in order to pay for a vaccine which he will use to save the lives of many underprivileged children, and he has no other means of getting the money in time. Was it wrong of him to make a false promise? Ignoring the intuitive problem this creates for Kantian theory, I would like to make a more subtle point. While Kant would tell us this action is immoral, because it fails the first formulation of making false promises, it doesn’t tell us what he should do. Should he let the children die? We don’t know, because Kant abandons us to speculation. Therefore, Categorical imperative is inadequate as a normative ethical theory. Another problem for Kantian theory might be the conflict of motivations and intentions (and human virtue). Consider the following example: Imagine I was to win the lottery and I'm wondering what to do with the money. I decide giving to charity would be really fun because it gives me the special feeling of making people happy, so I give all of my lottery money away. After all there is nothing admirable about such a selfish pursuit. However, it’s not just selfishness that is ruled out by Kantianism it is every motive besides morality. For instance, if you were someone who refused to the break the law and you always did what the law said just because its law and for no other reason(i.e. not because it is immoral to break the law), then your actions have no moral worth. The motive of your action, in this case, human law, not moral law. If you follow the for its own sake, then you would follow good and bad laws, including any laws which might violate morality. So, even if your society happens to have only good laws, you actions still do not make you a morally good person. Because your motive is wrong. The same type of reasoning can be applied to any other motive besides morality. Normative ethical theories should also be concerned with what one should do in real life situations. Even if it derives that we cannot make these decisions practically in human life we still should be able to arrive at the conclusion of the argument regardless. For example, Unitarianism tells us “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness”(John Stuart Mill, Unitarianism) and gives us a complex equation to solve solutions in daily life, even if though it recognizes that this impractical. All ethical theories should have practical application even if the practical application isn’t useful for daily life. Theories cannot ignore states of affairs and refuse to address them. There must be a system of determining the right choices, even if it’s impractical in daily life (It should be noted; when I say practical application I am referring to answering practical questions not its usefulness per se). Another problem with Kant’s ethical theory is that he writes inside a vacuum allowing no room for conflict. A perfect example of this would be stealing for food. Under Kant’s Universality maxim, stealing in order to feed your family is immoral, since applied universality, stealing would result in a great deal of rights infringements. Under Kant’s Humanity maxim, however, you would steal food for your family because you accord them inherent worth. Thus, we can see that in his writings, Kant offers no standard in which to determine which formulation of his categorical imperative to follow. Conclusion: Utilitarianism is the more correct and believable theory. I eagerly await my opponents response. I apologize that my response is somewhat short.