Wilburn 2020 states, “Morally speaking, Kant is a deontologist; from the Greek, this is the

science of duties. For Kant, morality is not defined by the consequences of our actions, our
emotions, or an external factor. Morality is defined by duties and one’s action is moral if it is
an act motivated by duty. According to Kant the only thing that is good in itself is the “good
will.” The will is what drives our actions and grounds the intention of our act. It is good when it
acts from duty.” Wilburn, Heather. “An Introduction to Kant's Moral Theory – Philosophical Thought.”
Oklahoma State University Library, 2020,
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/a-brief-overview-of-kants-moral-theory/. Accessed 24
January 2024.

Because the Categorical Imperative did not value the consequences of an action, we cannot apply
Kant’s theory to today’s debate. In the arena of foreign policy where military actions determine
the stability of millions of lives in the region and at home, we must value both actions and
consequences, recognizing that America’s policy towards the region involves combating (NEG)
using (AFF) proxies and other external actors.

The Ethics Centre expands, “Kant argued that morality cannot be based on our emotions or
experience of the world, because this would leave it weak and subjective, and lacking the
unconditional obligation that he believed was central to moral law. “Every one must admit
that a law has to carry with it absolute necessity if it is to be valid morally – valid, that is, as a
ground of obligation,” he wrote. His concern was that without this sense of unconditional
obligation, a moral rule like ‘do not lie’ could compete with and be overridden by other
concerns, like someone deciding they could lie because it suits their interests to do so, and they
value their interests more than morality.” The Ethics Centre. “Big Thinker: Immanuel Kant.” The Ethics
Centre, 12 April 2021, https://ethics.org.au/big-thinker-immanuel-kant/. Accessed 18 January 2024.

While the AFF/NEG has already proven that human life will be lost if we AFFIRM/NEGATE,
the Categorical Imperative tells us that an individual’s worldview is irrelevant. We must prefer
the AFF/NEG’s value and criterion because Kantian ethics cannot be used as a moral weighing
mechanism.

The Teacher’s College at Columbia University states, “First, imagine a world where every
action was generalizable; every action can be replicated by everyone. For example, if one
person stole an item and got away with it, then everyone could steal items in the same way
without repercussions. Follow this train of logic to its end, and you would have a world with
constant theft and some serious trust issues! In this case example, Kant’s universal law as the
basis for morality is logically sound; the universalizability principle would eliminate petty
theft, which society acknowledges as morally wrong. Now, imagine being under a
universalizability principle where no one could lie. At first, it sounds pretty great. Salespeople
would have to be upfront about their products, even if they were second-rate, and people couldn’t
lie about crimes they committed. But what about white lies? For example, you could not surprise
a friend with a party; instead, you would have to be upfront and tell the truth, ruining the
surprise! Taking it a step further, perhaps you knew a friend was keeping a new relationship
secret from a disgruntled ex-partner. The ex-partner confronts you and asks if the friend has
started dating someone new. You know that if you tell them the truth, the ex-partner may seek to
sabotage your friend's new relationship. Kant would argue that under the universalizability
principle, you cannot lie to your friend’s ex, as this action is inherently self-serving and thus not
generalizable. Instead, Kant would suggest two options: refuse to answer the question or tell the
truth. Under Kantian law, you would not be responsible if the ex-partner sought to ruin your
friend’s relationship, because the ex was acting outside of the universalizability principle
(seeking to sabotage). Yikes! This is a pretty bleak situation and provides evidence for how
Kantian logic falls outside of social norms.”