Pick your own debate - 1G

My opponent only makes one objection thus far: He presumes that Kant's ethics fail because "Kant hasn't resolved the problem of when his obligations conflict. Often we see the case in which two or more obligations will clash, such as the obligation to preserve human life and the abolition against lying. These two maxims are supposed to be absolute and universal, and yet they can be found in conflict - Kant, I would argue, has no way of resolving this. If he can't do this, then his theory is logically incoherent." This exact objection to his theory was raised by Swiss Philosopher Benjamin Constant. Constant remarks, "Since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey." Kant would see no conflict of obligations here. There is a difference between "not lying" and "telling the truth." A person may be vague, or a person may not tell at all. The categorical imperative can also work against the murderer at this point. According to Kant, if someone steals, they are allowing the rest of the world to steal from them also (categorical imperative). Thus, if a murderer asks for the location of his prey (thus asking for information to commit a malicious action) the other person has all of the right in the world to be malicious towards the murderer. The intent to murder someone is a direct challenge to the person you are defending's life - thus, the individual has the ability to challenge the murderer head on at this point. One may choose not to answer at all "the difference between 'not lying' and 'telling the truth'" or one may threaten the murderer as well. Lying, to Kant, is always, always wrong. But, also according to Kant, if you commit a wrong, you beg for equal wrong be done to you (catagorical imperitive) and thus, a murderer with malicious intent invites malicious intent. Thus, according to Kant (and his direct reply to Constant) and myself, there is no real conflict here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As PRO, I will present my case: Outline of Justification for Morality of Capital Punishment 1. Kant, "One man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another." A person can not be used as a means by another person; example: slavery is absolutely wrong. But, this doesn't mean that a person can not volunteer as a means to someone else; example: a service job. All this means is that you can't be "dealt with" as a means to someone else's purpose. and 2. Justice requires equality (no one's ends are more important than another's) Thus, Utilitarian means - using a person's life as a means to gains for other people (hard labor, etc) is morally wrong. If the reason for punishment is to deter others, to protect someone, or to set an example of the person, then the person punished is wronged; their humanity has not been respected. Thus, the statement can be seen as, "If you steal, you are inviting everyone to steal from you" or rather, stealing from yourself. The pain you inflict must be inflicted back to you, or jus talionis - the right of retaliation. By stealing, one is saying that property is insecure; and thus, if that were the universal maxim, he is inviting the idea that stealing is ok. Kant concedes to the idea that punishment should not lead the punisher to immoral activity. Thus, if a murderer tortures his victim before killing him, the punisher should not torture the murderer before execution. He says: "His death... must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable." Do not confuse "retribution" with "revenge." Kant does not take the side of revenge. We must punish the criminal with a punishment equal to his crime, but a punishment not disrespecting his dignity as a human being. Impossible, someone might say? No, for morality does not entitle us to everything. Thus, making Kant's most interesting claim: by punishing the criminal, we are respecting her freedom even more. She is responsible for for her actions, and was free to do otherwise (free to act good, but instead chose bad). So, a punishment is respect toward her humanity - and a repercussion of the maxim they have demonstrated. Someone who disrespects morality has pushed it, and thus if she believes that she shouldn't be punished but that others should be kept from stealing from her, she is going against a maxim. By engaging in immoral activity, we are accepting the consequences of our actions: allowing the crime to enter our maxim. So, if I steal from an individual, I am allowing for a punishment equal to the stealing be brought unto myself - thus respecting my "rational will" and humanity. So, in short, a crime committed is consent for jus talionis - and a just talionis that respects one's humanity, at that. A punisher must not act immorally. It must be noted that from everything that has been said, only the GUILTY must be punished. Substitution punishments may be issued to refrain from destroying a person's dignity - though the punishment must be equal or proportional to the crime committed. So, the just propose of punishment is, as Kant says, "in order that everyone may realize the desert of his deeds." In the case of murder, no substitute punishment can be sufficient to make the aggressor realize the significance of the wrong that has been done. Thus, Capital Punishment is the only way to preserve a criminal's dignity of "rational will" and humanity. The crime of murder is so monstrous that this is the only dignifying act to respect the person's humanity and choice to make the most immoral of choices and change their maxim to "I murder, thus I allow others to murder." It is wrong to punish people for utilitarian reasons (in other words, using them as a means to an end), because it disrespects their humanity and rational will. Punishment must always be in response to guilt. Thus, Capital Punishment is a morally superior stance to Utilitarian usage of a person. I suspect an engaging response from my opponent! : ) Regards, Vi Veri