Verified answer

I was just reading Schopenhauer's essay "The basis of morality", where he criticizes Kant's categorical imperative. I'm really still trying to get my head around his arguments for refuting Kant, but there is a passage which you may find helpful.

"...It is abundantly clear that Kant's famous leading principle is not-as he maintains with tireless repetition-a categorical but in reality a hypothetical imperative; because it tacitly presupposes the condition that the law to be established for what i do- inasmuch as I make it universal- shall also be a law for what is done to me; and because I, under this condition, as the eventualiter non-active party, cannot possibly wish for injustice and hard-heartedness. But if I strike out that proviso, and, trusting perhaps to my surpassing strength of mind and body, think of myself as always active, and never passive; then, in choosing the precept which is to be universally valid, if there exists no basis of ethics other than Kant's, I can perfectly well wish that injustice and hard-heartedness should be the general rule, and consequently order the world

'Upon the simple man,

that they should take, who have the power,

And they should keep, who can.'

-(Wardsworth)"

To really understand what he means, especially by passive, you would have to read the whole preceding chapter.

I personally agree with these ideals.

Universal law is in conflict with relativism, which is an idea that allows each individual to believe his own perspective is true and complete. It dismisses any universal truth or moral. Like a relativist might believe it is right to kill somebody in certain situations. Whereas, a universalist will believe that there could have been a better way to solve whatever conflict lead to the death.

Haven't heard much about the categorical test, and i don't feel like looking it up.