John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the categorical imperative by arguing that, "[Kant] fails... to demonstrate that there would no contradiction, no logical (not to say physical) contradiction, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All it shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur If correct, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant's moral theory as he understood it. Mill's criticism instead classifies Kant's moral theory as a kind of rule utilitarianism general to the public and, if the consequences are undesirable, the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, in the more precise language of Mill's utilitarianism, consequences that are not the result of producing maximum happiness. Mill's analysis is based on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant's theory. Without a concrete inconsistency, Kant might be nothing more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is wrong; the categorical imperative produces absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples. Kant argued that the categorical imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The IC states: I must act in such a way that I can will my maxim to become universal law. Maxims that fail to overcome the IC do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes that this imperative derives from the rationality of the will itself, and therefore is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; IC is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. Consequently, the failure… middle of paper… d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible (according to the CI) maxims. Mill argues that the IC shows only “that the consequences of universal adoption [of the maxims] would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is incorrect because there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce a result (the rejection of the maxim) made necessary by rationality and free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational. Works Cited Christine Korsgaard. Kant's universal law formula. p542Christine Korsgaard. Kant's universal law formula. p546Christine Korsgaard. Kant's universal law formula. p548Mill, Utilitarianism, chapter 1, p. 4