The categorical imperative

This is one of the common difficulties with the categorical imperative. Kant, for example, forbade lying in any case, even to save a life. The reasoning is that we would not want people to lie. But this is not necessarily true, since we would want people to lie to save a life (the general rule, for example: one must never lie except when necessary to save a life). It is always a question of how to generalize the law so that it is general. There are many forms of generalization. But it is still not correct to conclude from this that the categorical imperative is worthless. Kant's thinking is correct as a conceptual framework for morality. This framework must be filled with common sense and moral intuitions, all of which operate within this framework (they will determine what is a reasonable generalization and what is not). I think that one of the aspects in which the categorical imperative is strongest is the series of difficulties that I presented in the fourth notebook of the GHQ (tax evasion, voting in elections). There we see six acts that have no direct practical consequence and yet it is clear to everyone that they are forbidden to be done. The only explanation for this is the categorical imperative, see there.