Abstract Pauline Kleingeld’s “Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law”, published in this journal in 2017, presents a powerful challenge to what has become the standard (‘practical’) reconstruction of the categorical imperative. In this response to Kleingeld, I argue that she is right to emphasise the ‘simultaneity requirement’ - that we must be able to will a proposed maxim and ‘simulataneously’, ‘also’ or ‘at the same time’ the maxim in its universalised form - but I deny that this removes the categorical imperative test from the world of universalisation because the agent must be understood as part of that world. There are two distinct types of conflict: a contradiction that results from non-universalisability and Kleingeld’s ‘volitional’ conflict, located within the will of the immoral agent. The standard ‘practical’ reconstruction of the categorical imperative remains largely intact.

中文翻译：

---

两个冲突的故事

摘要Pauline Kleingeld的“矛盾与康德的普遍法公式”于2017年在该期刊上发表，对已成为绝对必要的标准（“实践”）重构提出了强大的挑战。在对Kleingeld的回应中，我认为她强调“同时性要求”是正确的-我们必须能够提出建议的格言，并“同时”，“同时”或“同时”将格言普遍化。形式-但我否认这从普遍性世界中删除了绝对的命令性测试，因为必须将代理理解为该世界的一部分。冲突有两种截然不同的类型：一种由不可通用性引起的矛盾，另一种是在不道德行为者的意愿之内的克莱因格德的“自愿”冲突。