There are quite a few problems with the categorical imperative: We cannot all do the same things. For example, there are things that adults do that are necessa

There are quite a few problems with the categorical imperative: We cannot all do the same things. For example, there are things that adults do that are necessary for the survival of humanity that children should not do. So your response would be to add more provisions, yet you can always add more provisions, because there are many ways that we cannot be the same. Here's a trivial one: if your name is Bob, you can kill people, otherwise it's wrong. You can replace that with all sorts of reasons why you are justified and others are not. You are not constrained in how you frame it. It's easy to use murder as an example, because we already intersubjectively agree it is wrong (murder is also wrong by definition). Let's get to an example closer to home for many people: I think it is clear that, using the categorical imperative, not having children is morally wrong because it would end horribly for the remaining aging population. I doubt you'd agree with that. You can only argue that the predicted result is not objective, but which predicted results are? Also, if I see someone doing something which I don't think is viable on a larger scale, am I to conclude that they're evil, or is the categorical imperative only meant to be applied personally?