system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What are some of the critiques of Kant's universalisability principle?

Has anyone seriously challenged the moral precept that people should only act when they wish the corresponding maxim to become general law?
I am especially interested in radical answers, perhaps even attempts at exposing the _immorality_ of this precept, and answers which refuse to adopt a utilitarian framework.

Thanks!
gpt
Hegel makes what's called the "empty formalism" objection against the CI.

Take, for example, the law against theft. If everyone were to steal, there would be no such thing as property, and then no one would be stealing. Accordingly, Kant claims, theft is contradictory if made a universal law.

Hegel argues that this only works if we already presuppose the existence of property. In a world without property (like the kind imagined by Rousseau), theft wouldn't exist in the first place.

Likewise, take the distinction between private property and public property. Trespassing on land, if everyone where allowed to do this, would be contradictory, because then there would be no such thing as private property. Yet one cannot trespass on public property, and so we're presupposing the ground (private property) that makes the contradiction possible.