Attacks on Kant's categorical imperative

[______Justin______]

I ran a round with my teammate a while back and came to the conclusion that this is the best philosophy I have seen so far. I was wondering if one of yall out there could give me a few pointers on why Kant's categorical imperative is bad?




please, thanks

[ydocgnortsmra]

Many people carry out good acts out of love, not from some sense of duty. A parent who does his duty for his children out of love is respected, whereas one who does his duty purely because it is his duty is criticised.

He assumes that everyone’s needs are the same, and that an individual’s moral claims are universally applicable. Kant appears to deny that people are individuals.

Kant also denies that circumstances may “blur” the edges of a moral claim. While it may be wrong to lie, a person may be justified in lying about the whereabouts of an individual to someone who wants to kill him. (N.B. Kant argued that consequence should not be divorced from the moral judgment. Rather, it was not the consequence that made an action wrong, but the application of consistent standards to behaviour. Lying is wrong, but circumstances may prove that lying prevents a greater evil. Kant’s approach in this seems arbitrary. Where rules conflict – the injunction against lying and the obligation to preserve life, for example – each rule’s decisiveness seems compromised.) Therefore Kant does not appear to take enough notice of the consequence of an action, and its impact on the moral character of the action itself. Many commentators supplant Kant’s imperative with a Utilitarian principle, in some cases to derive the ought from past experience, rather than from the a priori deliberation that Kant proposed.

[ydocgnortsmra]

What about torturing one to save 100?

What about torturing one to save 2?

What about torturing one to save one?

What about killing one to save a million?

What about killing one to save 100?

What about killing one to save 2?

It would seem that in each of the above examples, the end result is the saving of a greater harm than the harm imposed. Would you support each example above as morally justified? If not, where do you draw the line and why?

And what universal law thing?

[ydocgnortsmra]

lol im kinda stuck here now...i had never heard of kant's categorical imperative til u posted this and i looked it up and read a bit and then posted...i think its a fair argument and cant think of anything against it

[ydocgnortsmra]

lol thats better than anything i could come up with =P and im not even an lder, im cx all the way lol

[______Justin______]

well hoopefully it works. This is my second year in debate and that seems by far the best criterion.

[tplayer]

wow cool argument i will tell my partner about this lol

[Mattz]

Hmm my favorite attack on Kant is how his philosophy is actually more consequentialist in nature than Aff/Neg Claims.
The primary warrants for the CI are All ends based.
Example
Kant from GMM
"A Man who is in prosperity while he sees that others have to contend whit great wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks: what concern is it of mine? Let everyone be happy as heaven pleases, or as he can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not want to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in distress! Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal law, the human race might very well subsist, and doubtless even better than a state in which everyone talks of sympathy and good will, or even takes care occasionally to put it into practice, but on the other side, also cheats when he can, betrays the rights of men, or otherwise violates them."

Note the reason why laws are universal is because of the possible negative consequences of not doing so. Furthermore the final Prong the the CI, the kingdom of ends, serves as the primary justification for the CI. If we follow the CI we reach the kingdom. Hmm Sounds consequentialist. Also from where do Kants laws come? inherent good of actions? No. From norms established by Consequential thought.

[Lehman]

I don't think the attack on Kant is nearly as ironclad as it appears. A true consequentialist bases his actions solely on the basis of outcome. The Kantian "litmus test" for whether an act is moral or not is whether one could, in good conscience, will the act into a universal law. If the act cannot be made universal, if fails the test. Kant's theories deal with duty, the performance of which could still have a negative outcome. Unlike the consequentialist, he concentrates on the act itself, rather than viewing the end result, and finding a means to get there. The criticism is of the means, with the ends as something of a measure, sure, but much less a measure than the strict consequentialist, who can more esaily justify an immoral act on the basis of achieving a desired end. A consequentialist sees an end as desirable, then justifies actions to attain it. A Kantian desires moral ends, but evaluates the acts (means) themselves, and should disavow any act that fails the CI test, whether it would lead to the ends or not.