faith in chaos

John Stuart Mill makes the argument: (p1) I desire my happiness (p2) You desire your happiness _____________________ (c1) We desire our happiness I know this is false, but the name of the fallacy has escaped me. Can anyone help me out on this?

Fair enough- Kant's categorical imperative states that (paraphrasing) 'we should not act on any maxim which we cannot at the same time will to be universal law'. This statement looks like a subjective foundation to a moral philosophy, yet Kant would argue that it leads us to several objective conclusions. He states these conclusions in four cases (again paraphrasing): 1) Never to lie 2) Never to commit suicide 3) Never to let one's talents go to waste 4) Never to not help those in need My first thought would be to argue that these rules are in conflict with one each other, and thus, cannot co-exist (Kant justifies statement #2 on the duty to preserve life yet one could imagine a situation where lying would preserve life). Kant doesn't really provide any recorse for when two 'maxims which can be willed to be universal law' conflict with one another. He leaves himself open to believe contradictory conclusions and this pokes serious holes in beliefs. This may be a good way to deny Kant's conclusions of the Categorical Imperative, but it does not deny the Categorical Imperative itself. I feel like Objectivism would deny the CI outright but I'm drawing a blank as to how this method would be justified. Sorry for not being clear, I see where it could look like I was trying to get someone to do my work for me, this is not the case. I'm not well versed in Kantian ethics so I have a hard time finding the right strings to pull. I only have a few minutes to discuss Objectivism's rejection of Kant's ethics and I want to give a clear and concise portrayal. I would appreciate your insight. Thanks Brandon

For my ethics class I have to do a talk about Immanuel Kant's "grounding for the metaphysics of morals" and I wanted to talk about some of the criticisms of his moral philosophy. My purpose is to formulate an objectivist response to Kant's moral philosophy and I would like to hear what you guys think. Thanks for your help. Brandon