The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Utilitarianism (Bentham) v Deontology (Kant) Rap Battle

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,634 times Debate No: 66974
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




Philosophical rap battle.

Con is rapping for deontology, while Pro is rapping for Utilitarianism.

Personal slights against philosophers themselves are allowed but not preferred over ideological rap.

20 lines are allowed.

First round is acceptance only. Everything else is fair game.


I'll take it up, PhiLockeraptor. Would feel slightly more comfortable if it was Mill and Kant but that"s not a major issue. Also, are we rapping as the philosophers or on behalf of the philosophers (Just for grammatical problems).
Debate Round No. 1


Your request can be done. Voters, please treat this as Kant vs. Mill, with Con rapping as Kant.

This is going to be more philosophy oriented. Personal cheap-shots are okay, but an excess of them should be seen as bad conduct.

Basically, use good judgement.




Utillity is hypocritical;
It wants the best for all humans while ignoring the individual

How can good for humans be good,
If individual blood is like Mike Brown in the Hood?

Your arguments for utility are made in futility
They try to make what's right (Pause) into computability

That's a fool gambit, and you know I'll slam it
Just like all the minorities you be shammin'
Public plannin, gone astray, Default to Morality,
And do it the right way!

Hitler was a utilitarian,
Giving only Whites basic human Rights
That's sickening, a blot on human history.

Six millions jews murdered for no Reason,
But according to you, we should all be breathin easy 'cause the Majority is what the Nazi's were pleasing.

All this pleasure stuff is merely subjective,
Totally subservient to ones own perspective.

You can't be impartial, it's like a court martial,
I've figured out the Whole while you're scraping at the partial.



Deontology is hypocrisy
Welcome to utility
Let me show you why I'm the better philosophy
All your categorical imperatives point to me.

Lying destroys trust and happiness
As does stealing, war and malice.
All values in all their masses
Still point towards my happiness.

"Try to make what's right into computability?"
Utilitarianism has malleability.
Your laying programmed laws universally
For every single possibility.

You think people aren't a means to an end
Yet you treat them as systems my friend
And despite this you still defend
The following structure to its end.

A strict uncaring system to apply
No complexity , all black and white
So tell me you"re a truer system then I
Oh wait, I forgot, you can't lie.
Debate Round No. 2


Deontology is objective, values depending on Reason,

Utility is subjective, goals changing with the season.

Listen Mill, you can't fit the bill,

The best goal for util is the popping of the pill

Where's the humanity in that?

Making humans into nothing more than a monkey or a rat.

Practicality is not a valid intention,

Take a look at my Critique, and call your Pimp Daddy Bentham

The bottom line of morality is respect,

Without it, your motives are amoral at best

Now let's take a look at the Util Monster,

Because your math just doesn't fit the roster

If one person likes money more than anyone else

We need to give it to him, damn societal help!

That's out of wack, it goes against reason,

I guess times are changing, and Tyrannies the season

No human respect, no rational worth

Why should I care about your happiness if you're like the soil of the Earth?

The bottom line, utils ends are only good,

If we use the moral Engines that are under our hood.



Morality is subjective, one thing I need to underscore.
There are always problems under universal law.
Hiding refugees in the Second World War
You'd still be honest to persecutors at the door.

So when you're two categorical imperatives collide
Say the duty to protect and the duty not to lie
Then tell me Kant how do you decide?
The lesser of two evils is just consequentialism in disguise.

Of course we should give money to those in need
But there is less happiness to be had furthering human greed.
That argument you will need to concede
Unless you are still being disagreed.

The pursuit of happiness is in the declaration
You're treating morality like an equation.
You're arguing you're protecting against manipulation
but your hard set laws are just dehumanization.

I'm bringing joy to humanity
You're just bringing immorality.
You see the problems with deontology
Start living in reality.
Debate Round No. 3


In your moral dillemma, there's something amiss

If Hitler was Kantian, it wouldn't exist

Six million killed, not because of truth

But because of utility being uncouth!

The duty to protect can only apply

When my ethics have been violated, and that's no lie

Murder, rape, malice, and greed

Are a result of violating the deontology creed

You haven't addressed the fact that more means less,

Util monster means societal mess

Just look at the depressed

Should we just give them nothing because they're always distressed?

The pursuit of happiness is good, I agree

But Util interferes if it means more glee

And because it is subjective, there can be no corrective

Christians and Roman Lions put this in perspective.

You don't care about happiness, you care about instinct

Feed a dog or a rat, treat humans like mincemeat

And although I know that you don't see this as imperitive

I refuse to lose and let the Tyrant frame the narrative.


Don't dismiss evil quite so quickly.
I find your dogmatism rather sickly.
Saying no evil exists with your system is risky
So let me finish this, quickly.

A single rule can't apply in every situation,
It's going to cause pain at some occasion.
Hitler existed, let's not be mistaken.
Your circular logic might need more persuasion.

Promoting happiness, that is my slogan.
Betterment for all not just a few chosen.
John Stuart is going to Mill up your straw man.
And let me point out the contradiction when you began;

Your basis was that consequences are irrelevant.
But your universal law requires we experiment
To observe the continuing action's development.
Your theory defeats its own prerequisite.

Despite your complexity your argument is weak,
Based incorrectly despite your technique,
And now it is time to admit defeat.
Your pure reason just met my critique.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
No problem man! You've given me a lot to think about as well

And you know, these battles are very intuitive.

Perhaps we should make something out of them? Youtube channels, or audio samples?

Whaddya think?
Posted by Sssomeone 1 year ago
Thank you for the rap battle! It's been a lot of fun and given me a lot to think about over my position on utilitarianism.
Posted by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
Too late, I'm afraid. Maybe a separate debate is in order?
Posted by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
Too late, I'm afraid. Maybe a separate debate is in order?
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Sure but I'd be rapping on behalf of reason, not feelings, right?
Posted by Sssomeone 1 year ago
If no-one more experienced takes up the debate I will. It will be interesting to watch!
Posted by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
We could do moral intuitionism vs. Kantian Constructivism (morals through what we 'feel' is right vs. Reasoning constructs). Sound good?
Posted by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
Don't worry. I don't have formal education on psychology either. Would you like me to take out the names?
Posted by Sssomeone 1 year ago
I'm tempted but I don't know enough about Jeremy Bentham's views on Utilitarianism, nor have I studied philosophy formally.
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Hmm we can do border fence (I'm Con) if you wanna do something political. As for philosophical topics, I like determinism (Pro). I'm iffy on ethics but I'm pro subjective ethics. I probably lean toward Objectivism though dislike the association. I like theorizing on time but that's probably not fun rap battle material :P Same for most philosophical topics I presume regarding metaphysics, aesthetics, etc. But we can try.
No votes have been placed for this debate.