Explain to me the problems with the Categorical Imperative

As far as I can tell, Kant is God-tier

muh feelings

It is claimed to be a formal way of judging morals when in reality it always presupposes some material idea of morality. For example, the categorical imperative can be used both for and against private property.

You can't kill a person who is trying to kill you

well, your wife and kids get murdered, and you never get security clearance anywhere.

Ah, I see
Sure I can, universalize the right to kill people who attempt to kill you or others first.

>universalize the right to kill people who attempt to kill you or others first.
You can only do that in a world where killing people who want to kill you or your family is already accepted as ethically correct

We established no metaethical basis for his morality.

Also, it's really autistic. The only things that should follow it is robots.

But it seems the most logical; anytime you do something just ponder what the world would be like if everyone did that.
I guess the problem I have with it is that it then must value that outcome via utilitarian principles whilst at the same time declaring itself a deontological moral system. But isn't that a flaw in all moral systems?
I think we must accept the utilitarian idea for even starting a moral system, but them come up with a consistent deontological framework. Sort of staggering the two epistemologies, I don't know what the word would be for that.

>But it seems the most logical; anytime you do something just ponder what the world would be like if everyone did that.
You haven't really studied morality until you've read Nietzsche.

Read Stirner and Nietszche

This guy knows things

My problem with it is that you can't use it to derive a practical legal system since determining what should be a universal law is highly subjective.

Thus the imperative has zero application is political and moral philosophy, despite that being its purpose.

I don't care for existentialism, egoism or postmodernism, but thank you!

Daisy chaining

But still. Kant have no metaethical basis for his morality.

>I don't care for existentialism, egoism or postmodernism
Nietzsche isn't part of any of those schools though, although he is considered one of the earliest influences on the existentialists and post-modernists.

Knowing about any of those 3, knowing about all of those 3 -- tells you nothing about Nietzsche.

thats a portrait of f.h. jacobi tho

It's just as arbitrary as any other system of moral absolutism.

he was like 4'2"

Philosphy is, and always has been, bullshit.

5 feet actually

What about the perfect duties in which the maxims of action result in logical fallacies. You only seem to be criticizing the imperfect duties in which subjective preference is somewhat taken into account.

Why do people still pretend that painting depicts Kant?