Instigator / Pro
11
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2643

Kantian Ethics vs Utilitarianism

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Description

BOP is evenly shared.
Pro will argue for Kantian Ethics.
Con will argue for Utilitarian Ethics.
Free will is assumed.

The crux of the discrepancy in these moral theories is the focus on consequences in determining the moral value of an action.

The judges should look to determine which moral theory is more persuasive.

I hope this turns out to be a fun debate!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

First of all, they were discussing ETHICS, not MORALITY. Ethics is the set of principles on which a society bases their actions. Morality on the other hand is how individuals and groups actually act. A morally good action is one that acts according to the ethical principles. In the context of this debate, the two words were uses interchangeably.

THE THEORIES:
Ethics need to propose two things: A. principles of how to act and B. reason, motivation or authority backing up the principles.

Pro arguably nailed point B, by actually providing a universal set of principles on which all humans should be able to agree. He successfully proved that ethics is about DUTY - a point which is shared by the Judeo Christian values on which human rights and western morality is based upon. When it comes to point A, con arguably put up a more flexible set of principles - effectively making it possible for individuals to make completely different decisions and still be called morally good. However as Pro pointed out that ethical systems are to create coherence and an objective standard rather than being a mathematical equation. Con failed to explain in a sufficient manner what a "greater good" is as compared to a lesser good. Thus undermining his argument. Cons argument that Kantian ethics make impossible individual variation was successfully rebutted by Pro - when he said that there is a difference between an action and a moral action. However Pro failed to explain what the difference what. The arguments from con definitely felt more convincing at the time I read them, but I thought about it and the ultimate victor with regards to arguments was Pro. Well done both of you.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nI2dj8PYgMlyZz7w29IA1_GvMOODv_PHznT0AfwgA1k/edit?usp=sharing

Good debate. This was close