did anyone ever try putting the categorical imperative through the analysis of the categorical imperative? it seems to me to be one of those things that contradicts itself.
you should only do that which you would want everyone to do. Everyone should in theory want you to do only that which you would want everyone to do. then your policy is supposed to be valid according to them.
what?
i was told that it was meant in the sense that anything taken to an extreme can’t contradict itself.
like if everyone murders then you cant murder because there will be no murder. maybe my philosophy teacher is dumb.
categorical imperative: only do things if you should want everyone else to do them. So let us suppose everyone did things that they would want everyone else to do. So let’s say people murder, then they would want everyone else to murder. Then surely they would want murder to stay murder? murder is defined as killing which is against the law. If they kill which is against the law surely they would want everyone else to kill which is against the law. You can not want to kill against the law and then want others to not kill against the law. Thus i imagine they should want the law to stay? But trust your teacher, I could be wrong!!! ( !!! ) 
But I understand what your teacher means. But if you use the murder example you should state that "If everyone wishes to kill legally, then they should wish everyone else to kill legally, which means everyone will kill legally, or at least those who are strong enough will kill the others. But the point is everyone WANTED to killed legally. Of course wether you kill or murder it stays a death for someone and so wether you call it murder or death the act, essentially, remains the same thing, it just has different consequences. PS: don’t tell your teacher about me and my theory; he will hate me all the way from New York or whatever. They always do. Plus remember, the categorical imperative states that you should do something if you think everyone else should be allowed to do it, too, but that does not mean that everyone will do it. Only when they want to.
Or, perhaps another way to phrase it might be:
Only do something, if you think your reasoning would be appropriate as a universal principle.
Thus, if you are considering whether to litter, ask yourself, “should littering be considered a universally accepted activitiy?” If it would cause harm as a universal principle, then you shouldn’t behave that way.
The Categorical Imperative collapses upon itself
a). Because the “motto” has to be framed in actual language and words are inherently polysemous (i.e. “murder” can be defined ad hoc)
b). It is designed to evacuate one’s personal interest from a deed, but there is a hidden and perverse pleasure (jouissance) in making oneself the instrument of the Law. It carries its stain with it.
c). Taken to its extreme, Ultimate Good cannot be discerned from Ultimate Evil (following the orders of a gestapo would be self-redeeming). Kant is the mirror of de Sade.
a) same with ALL language. No different here.
b) why is being an instrument of the law a “stain”?
c) What do you mean?
a) Exactly.
b) Personal interest cannot be evacuated from purpose; it is experienced as a “stain” only when one tries to scrub it clean.
c) Imperatives that justify themselves are formally the same, be they Evil or Good.
How does the Cat. Imp. contradict itself?
What are the two inconsistent statements?
Dunamis,
Good insights. Kaufmann describes Kant as suffering from constipation–mental and physical. But is there not a categorical imperative that reaches beyond personal interpretations? For instance–We live in a biosphere. If we destroy the biosphere, we will become extinct. No morality here, just cause and effect.
“Don’t put your hand in the fire, or you’ll get burned” is not the same as “You must not put your hand in the fire”. Go ahead, put your hand in the fire.
Don’t our musts evolve from cans and wills (happenings)?
It seems that Kant’s ideas are effective for governement. A government is a concept and not a reality, so one can place “musts” within the construct in order to maintain the construct.
Well this is the difference between a phiolophy of immanence and one of transcendence. In immanence, musts are never more than operations from within the contexts of having-beens. Transcendence pretends that having-beens are conditioned by always-is’s, that somehow we can know in an always-is kinda way. But interestingly and more pointedly, your use of the word “evolve” covers a multitude of philosophical sins. 
Not really,
I’m an evolutionist, not into supposed dichotomies of immanence and transcendence. Much philosophy backs me up.
Well as long as “much of philosophy backs you up” you have nothing to worry about. I’ve read much of philosophy, and have no idea how you are using the word “evolves” (an aporia in “much of philosophy”, from Plato on down to Whitehead).
D.,
Leibnitz, Spinoza, Darwin, Mendel, Dewey; and yes, it goes back to the preSocratics.
I am well versed in Spinoza, Darwin and the pre-Socratics. I still don’t know what you mean by “evolves”.
Boys, instead of fighting why not explore the applications of Knat’s ideas, so that we can see both sides.