- A person is drowning, and a bystander who is a strong swimmer considers whether to attempt a rescue. The water is cold and the current is strong, posing a significant risk to the bystander's own life. The bystander's maxim is, 'I will not risk my own life to save a stranger.' How would Kant's categorical imperative most likely assess this situation?
Answer: The duty to help others is imperfect, and it does not require one to incur extreme risk or sacrifice one's own life; therefore, the action is likely permissible.
When analyzing Kantian ethics scenarios, you need to distinguish between perfect and imperfect duties, as they have different requirements for moral action.
Kant's categorical imperative creates two types of duties. Perfect duties (like not lying or murdering) are absolute prohibitions that allow no exceptions. Imperfect duties (like helping others or developing talents) are positive obligations that require you to act on them sometimes, but don't specify exactly when or to what extent.
The duty to help others is an imperfect duty. This means you have a genuine moral obligation to assist people in need, but Kant doesn't require you to sacrifice your own life or accept extreme personal risk to fulfill it. You can choose when and how to help based on your circumstances, capabilities, and the level of risk involved. The bystander's decision not to attempt a dangerous rescue doesn't violate this duty because imperfect duties have built-in flexibility for self-preservation.
Answer A incorrectly applies the contradiction in will test too rigidly - while we might want others to save us, we can rationally will a world where people don't take extreme personal risks for strangers. Answer C misapplies the Formula of Humanity - choosing self-preservation over extreme risk doesn't treat the drowning person as merely a means. Answer D reaches the right conclusion but for the wrong reason - the action is permissible because of the nature of imperfect duties, not because the maxim passes universalizability.
Remember: imperfect duties in Kant's system require regular action but allow discretion about timing, method, and degree of personal sacrifice involved.
- According to Kantian ethics, the command to treat humanity as an end in itself is grounded in the special status of rational beings. What is it about rationality, specifically, that gives persons this inherent worth (dignity)?
Answer: Rationality is the source of the moral law itself; it allows beings to legislate universal laws and act out of respect for them, giving them an unconditional value.
The correct answer is A. For Kant, the unique status of rational beings comes from their autonomy—their ability to be self-legislating, to create and abide by universal moral laws. This capacity to be the source of morality itself is what gives them a 'dignity' beyond mere price or instrumental value. B describes an instrumental value of rationality, which is more aligned with utilitarianism. C lists capacities associated with rationality but doesn't identify the core normative feature for Kant. D grounds worth in emotion and sympathy, which Kant explicitly argues against as the foundation of morality.
- A person sees someone collapse on the street from a heart attack. The person is a trained doctor and has time to help, but decides to walk past because they do not want to get involved and be late for a social event. To test this action against the categorical imperative, which of the following is the most accurately formulated maxim?
Answer: When I can help someone in dire need without significant risk or cost to myself, I will not do so in order to avoid a minor inconvenience.
The correct answer is A. A maxim should state the general principle underlying an action, including the situation, the action, and the motive. Choice A captures the morally relevant features: the ability to help, the level of need, the low cost to oneself, and the trivial reason for not acting. B is too specific; the categorical imperative tests general principles, not highly particularized descriptions. C and D are plausible but less precise than A; 'minor inconvenience' better captures the moral weight of being late for a party compared to saving a life.
- An employer makes a deliberately deceptive promise of a promotion to a high-performing employee to prevent them from accepting a job at a rival company. The employer has no intention of ever granting the promotion. How does this single action violate both the universalization principle and the humanity principle of the categorical imperative?
Answer: It fails universalization because if all employers made false promises, the concept of a promise would be nullified; it fails the humanity principle by using the employee's rational desires merely as a means.
When analyzing ethical dilemmas through Kant's categorical imperative, you need to apply both formulations systematically: the universalization principle (could this be a universal law?) and the humanity principle (does this treat people as ends in themselves?).
The deceptive promise violates universalization because if everyone made false promises to retain employees, the very concept of promising would become meaningless—no one would believe promises anymore, making the practice self-defeating. It violates the humanity principle because the employer exploits the employee's rational desire for career advancement purely as a tool to serve company interests, treating them merely as a means rather than respecting their autonomous decision-making.
Choice A incorrectly suggests universalization is less relevant in interpersonal contexts—both principles always apply equally in Kantian ethics. Choice C focuses on consequentialist concerns (economic harm, personal distress) rather than the deontological structure of Kant's framework, which evaluates the action's form, not its outcomes. Choice D reverses the principles—it's the false promise that fails universalization, while using someone merely as a means violates the humanity principle.
The key trap here is confusing which violation corresponds to which principle. Remember: universalization asks "what if everyone did this?" while the humanity principle asks "am I respecting this person's rational autonomy?" When studying Kant, practice identifying both violations separately in each scenario—many actions violate both principles but through different logical pathways.
- A medical researcher enrolls impoverished patients in a clinical trial for a new drug. The researcher fully discloses the risks but offers a payment so substantial that the patients, due to their desperate circumstances, feel they cannot refuse. The researcher's maxim is 'to use financial incentives to secure trial participants for the advancement of science.' Why might a Kantian argue this still violates the Formula of Humanity?
Answer: The severe economic pressure constitutes a form of coercion, which compromises the patients' ability to give truly voluntary and rational consent, thus using them merely as a means.
When you encounter questions about Kant's Formula of Humanity, focus on the core principle: we must never treat people "merely as means" but always "also as ends in themselves." This means respecting people's rational autonomy and dignity.
The correct answer is D because Kantian ethics emphasizes that moral action requires genuinely free, rational choice. When economic desperation creates overwhelming pressure, patients cannot exercise true autonomy—they're effectively coerced by circumstances. Even with full disclosure, their consent isn't genuinely voluntary because their dire financial situation leaves them no real choice. This reduces them to mere means for advancing scientific research, violating their dignity as rational agents.
Answer A misrepresents Kantian ethics by focusing solely on the researcher's motives. While Kant values good will, the Formula of Humanity specifically examines whether actions respect people's rational agency, not just the actor's intentions. Answer B applies utilitarian reasoning (weighing costs and benefits), which contradicts Kant's deontological approach that focuses on duties and rights rather than consequences. Answer C is too absolute—Kant wouldn't categorically prohibit all payment for medical trials. Reasonable compensation that doesn't create coercive pressure could be acceptable if it preserves genuine autonomy.
Remember that Kantian questions often test whether you can distinguish between treating someone "as a means" (which can be acceptable, like paying a cashier) versus treating them "merely as a means" (which violates their dignity and autonomy). Look for scenarios where economic pressure, deception, or manipulation compromises genuine rational consent.
- An individual with many natural talents decides to neglect them in favor of a life of ease and amusement. How does Kant's universalization principle assess the maxim 'I will not develop my talents, but instead pursue only immediate pleasure'?
Answer: While a world where no one develops their talents is conceivable, a rational being could not will it, as they necessarily will the development of their own rational capacities as a means to achieve various ends.
The correct answer is A. This scenario illustrates a 'contradiction in will.' One can imagine a world where no one develops their talents, so it doesn't fail the 'contradiction in conception' test. However, as a rational being, one necessarily wills to have the means to achieve one's goals. Developing talents is a key means for achieving most goals. Therefore, one cannot rationally will a universal law where this means is unavailable. B is a consequentialist argument. C incorrectly identifies the failure as a contradiction in conception. D misrepresents Kantian ethics; duties to oneself are central, and this action violates an imperfect duty to oneself.
- A person in extreme debt considers selling themselves into indentured servitude for ten years. The contract is technically voluntary, but it requires them to give up their autonomy and follow all commands of their master. How does Kant's Formula of Humanity evaluate this choice?
Answer: The act is impermissible because it treats one's own humanity and rational agency merely as a means to solve a financial problem, thereby violating a perfect duty to oneself.
When you encounter questions about Kant's Formula of Humanity, focus on his core principle: always treat humanity, whether in yourself or others, never merely as a means but always also as an end. This formula emphasizes the inherent dignity and rational agency that defines human worth.
In this scenario, the person would be surrendering their rational autonomy—the very capacity that gives them moral dignity—to solve a financial problem. Even though the contract appears voluntary, Kant argues we have perfect duties to ourselves that cannot be waived, including the duty to preserve our rational agency. By giving up the ability to make autonomous decisions and becoming subject to all commands, the person treats their humanity merely as a tool for debt relief, violating their duty to respect their own rational nature.
Option A is wrong because it applies consequentialist reasoning (weighing outcomes), while Kant's ethics are deontological—focused on the nature of the act itself, not its results. Option B misunderstands autonomy; genuine autonomy cannot include the choice to permanently surrender autonomy, as this would be self-defeating. Option D incorrectly suggests that preserving some moral boundaries would make the arrangement permissible, but Kant would reject any complete surrender of rational agency regardless of safeguards.
The correct answer is C because it recognizes that using one's rational agency merely as a means violates a perfect duty to oneself.
Remember: Kant's Formula of Humanity prohibits treating rational agency—your own or others'—as merely instrumental, even with consent. Perfect duties to oneself cannot be waived through voluntary agreement.
- A judge is a masochist who enjoys being punished. Adhering strictly to the Golden Rule ('Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'), the judge imposes cruel and unusual punishments on convicted criminals, reasoning that they would want such punishments inflicted upon themselves. Why would the categorical imperative, unlike the Golden Rule, forbid the judge's actions?
Answer: The categorical imperative requires universalizing a rational maxim, not personal desires; the maxim 'to inflict cruel punishment' violates the duty to respect the rational humanity of the criminals as ends in themselves.
This question tests your understanding of Kant's categorical imperative versus the Golden Rule, highlighting a crucial difference in how they handle subjective versus universal moral reasoning.
The categorical imperative requires that you act only according to maxims you could will to be universal laws, while treating rational beings as ends in themselves, never merely as means. The masochistic judge's actions violate this principle because they're universalizing a personal desire rather than a rational maxim. The maxim "inflict cruel punishment because I enjoy receiving it" cannot be universalized as rational moral law, and crucially, it fails to respect the criminals' rational humanity and dignity as ends in themselves.
Looking at the wrong answers: (A) focuses on professional duty rather than the philosophical distinction between these moral frameworks. (B) mischaracterizes the Golden Rule as primarily about empathy, when it's actually about reciprocal treatment - the judge is technically following the Golden Rule by treating others as they'd want to be treated. (D) appeals to consequentialist reasoning about societal outcomes, but the categorical imperative is deontological, focused on the inherent rightness of actions rather than their results.
The key insight is that the Golden Rule can lead to problematic outcomes when people have unusual preferences, because it's based on subjective desires. The categorical imperative avoids this trap by requiring that moral maxims be universalizable through reason and respect human dignity objectively.
Study tip: Remember that Kant's ethics are about rational universalizability and human dignity, not personal preferences or outcomes. When comparing moral frameworks, focus on their underlying logical structures.
- A friend is hiding in your house from someone who intends to murder them. The would-be murderer knocks on your door and asks if your friend is inside. According to a strict and traditional interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative, which holds lying to be a violation of a perfect duty, what is the morally required action?
Answer: To refrain from lying to the murderer, as the maxim 'to lie to achieve a desired end' fails the universalization test and thus violates a perfect duty that admits no exceptions.
When you encounter questions about Kant's categorical imperative, focus on his rigid deontological framework that judges actions by their adherence to universal moral rules, not by their consequences.
Kant's categorical imperative requires that moral maxims be universalizable—you must be able to will that everyone follow the same rule in similar circumstances. Under strict Kantian ethics, lying violates a "perfect duty" because the maxim "lie when it serves your purposes" creates a logical contradiction when universalized: if everyone lied strategically, the very concept of truthful communication would collapse, making lying itself impossible.
The correct answer is B because Kant famously argued that lying is always wrong, even in extreme cases like this murderer scenario. The universalization test fails for any form of lying because it undermines the institution of truth-telling that makes communication meaningful. Perfect duties admit no exceptions, regardless of consequences.
Choice A is wrong because it appeals to consequentialist reasoning and weighs competing duties—approaches Kant explicitly rejected. Choice C fails because even "lying to save innocent life" cannot be universalized without the same logical contradiction that undermines all truth-telling. Choice D might seem clever, but Kant would likely view refusing to answer as deceptive evasion that violates the spirit of truthfulness.
Remember that Kantian ethics is notoriously demanding and counterintuitive. When studying deontology, distinguish it sharply from consequentialism—Kant cares about the moral worth of actions themselves, not their outcomes, no matter how tragic the results might be.
- A shopkeeper is tempted to short-change a customer who is clearly not paying attention. The shopkeeper considers the maxim, 'When I can benefit by deceit without being caught, I will do so.' What is the specific Kantian reason, derived from the universalization test, that makes this action impermissible?
Answer: Universalizing the maxim creates a world where the concept of currency and honest exchange would be undermined, making the act of 'giving change' conceptually incoherent.
When you encounter Kantian ethics questions, focus on the categorical imperative's universalization test: can you rationally will that everyone follow the same maxim without logical contradiction?
The correct answer is C because Kant's universalization test reveals a conceptual contradiction. If everyone followed the maxim "deceive when you can benefit without being caught," the very institutions that make the original action possible would collapse. In a world where everyone cheats with money, the concepts of honest exchange, fair pricing, and trustworthy currency would become meaningless. You literally couldn't "give change" in any coherent sense because the entire framework of honest commerce would be destroyed. This creates what Kant calls a "contradiction in conception" - the universalized maxim undermines the very possibility of the action it prescribes.
Option A is wrong because it focuses on personal preferences and consequences rather than logical contradiction. Kant's test isn't about what you'd personally want to experience. Option B describes practical consequences like economic decline, but Kant's categorical imperative doesn't depend on empirical outcomes - it's about logical consistency, not practical results. Option D appeals to virtue ethics and character, which is Aristotelian thinking, not Kantian. Kant's moral framework focuses on duty and universal laws, not virtues or human flourishing.
Remember: Kantian questions test logical consistency, not consequences or character. Look for answers showing how universalizing a maxim would create logical contradictions that make the original action conceptually impossible.
- An agent proposes the maxim: 'I will accept help from others when in need, but I will never offer help to others, even at little cost to myself.' According to Kant, this maxim fails the universalization test. Which option provides the correct reason for this failure?
Answer: It results in a contradiction in the will, because as a rational agent, one necessarily wills to receive help to achieve one's own ends, and cannot consistently will a universal law that would deny that possibility.
When you encounter Kant's universalization test, you're dealing with his famous categorical imperative - the idea that moral maxims must be universalizable without contradiction. Kant identifies two types of contradictions: contradiction in conception (where the universal law becomes logically incoherent) and contradiction in the will (where you cannot rationally will the universal law because it defeats your own rational purposes).
The maxim "accept help but never offer it" creates a contradiction in the will. As a rational agent, you necessarily will to receive help when needed to achieve your ends. However, if everyone followed this maxim, no one would ever offer help, making it impossible for anyone (including yourself) to receive help. You cannot rationally will both to receive help and to live under a universal law that makes receiving help impossible.
Option A incorrectly focuses on subjective happiness, but Kant's ethics isn't based on what makes us content - it's about rational consistency. Option B mischaracterizes Kant as a utilitarian concerned with general happiness and suffering, which contradicts his deontological approach that focuses on duty and rational consistency, not consequences. Option C suggests a contradiction in conception, claiming the concept of "need" becomes incoherent, but this isn't accurate - people would still have needs even if no one helped; the concept remains coherent.
Remember: For Kant's universalization test, always ask whether you can rationally will your maxim as a universal law without undermining your own rational purposes as an agent.
- From a strictly Kantian perspective, analyzing the act of killing the one to save the five, which of the following provides the correct moral assessment?
Answer: The act is impermissible because it treats the healthy person merely as a means to the ends of others, violating the absolute worth of their humanity.
When you encounter ethical dilemmas involving sacrifice and consequences in philosophy, you need to distinguish between different moral frameworks—particularly Kantian deontology versus consequentialism.
Kant's moral philosophy centers on two key principles: the Categorical Imperative (act only according to maxims you could will to be universal laws) and the principle that rational beings possess inherent dignity and must never be treated merely as means to an end. In this organ transplant scenario, the healthy patient would be killed solely to serve the surgeon's goal of saving five others, reducing them to nothing more than a source of organs. This violates their fundamental humanity and autonomy—they become a mere tool rather than an end in themselves. Therefore, D correctly identifies the Kantian objection.
A misapplies the universalization test by focusing on self-preservation rather than the proper moral logic. B reflects utilitarian thinking (greatest good for greatest number), which is precisely what Kant rejects—he argues that consequences cannot justify treating people as mere objects. C attempts a Kantian analysis through universalization but focuses on practical outcomes (destroying trust) rather than the fundamental principle violation. While this might be a valid concern, it misses Kant's core objection about human dignity.
Remember: Kant is never about consequences or outcomes. When you see Kantian questions, always ask yourself whether people are being treated as mere means and whether you could universalize the underlying principle without logical contradiction.
- A student pays a tutor for help with a difficult philosophy course. The student's sole goal is to get a good grade, and the tutor's sole goal is to earn money. According to Kant's Formula of Humanity, why is this interaction morally permissible?
Answer: Both individuals use each other as a means to an end, but not merely as a means, because the arrangement is based on voluntary and informed consent.
The correct answer is A. This question tests the crucial distinction between using someone as a means and using them merely as a means. Kant's ethics do not forbid using people as means (which is necessary in any service economy). The prohibition is on doing so in a way that they could not, in principle, consent to. Because the tutoring arrangement is based on informed consent, both parties respect each other's rational agency and are not treating each other merely as tools. B is a utilitarian justification. C misinterprets 'treating as an end'—the respect is for their personhood/rationality, not their specific skills or goals. D focuses on the absence of harm, which is not the core of the Kantian analysis.
- A mechanic knows a customer's car only needs a minor, inexpensive repair. However, the mechanic tells the customer a major, expensive component needs replacement to make more money. In what way does this action violate Kant's Formula of Humanity?
Answer: The mechanic treats the customer merely as a means by subverting their rational consent; the customer cannot truly assent to the transaction because they are being deceived.
The correct answer is A. The Formula of Humanity states one should never treat others merely as a means. The key to this is consent. By deceiving the customer, the mechanic ensures the customer cannot, in principle, consent to the real nature of the transaction. The customer is being used as a mere tool for the mechanic's profit. B is incorrect because it focuses on the negative consequence of financial harm (utilitarianism). C is incorrect because the violation is stronger than simply 'not helping'; it is an active deception. D is incorrect because it applies reasoning from the universalization formula, not the formula of humanity.
- A person attempts to justify stealing a loaf of bread by formulating their maxim as: 'When I, a person named Alex with a specific social security number, am at 34 Oak Street on a Tuesday, I will steal a loaf of bread if I am hungry.' Why does this maxim fail as a proper subject for the universalization test?
Answer: The maxim includes irrelevant, arbitrary details about the agent and situation, failing to state the underlying principle of the action that is being tested for its universality.
This question tests your understanding of Kant's categorical imperative and the universalization test, specifically what makes a maxim properly formulated for moral evaluation.
The correct answer is D because Kant's universalization test requires you to identify the underlying moral principle of an action, not the specific circumstances. A proper maxim should capture the essential moral feature that could apply to anyone in relevantly similar situations. This overly specific maxim—mentioning Alex's name, social security number, the exact address, and day of the week—includes arbitrary details that have no moral relevance. The real principle being tested is "steal when hungry," but by burying it in irrelevant specifics, the person avoids honestly confronting whether that principle could be universally adopted.
Answer A is wrong because while using someone as a mere means is indeed problematic in Kantian ethics, this question specifically asks about the formulation of the maxim for universalization testing, not about the treatment of persons.
Answer B misses the point entirely—the goal isn't to find loopholes by making maxims so specific that few people would be affected. This approach completely undermines the universalization test's purpose.
Answer C reflects a simplistic view that stealing is always wrong regardless of context, but Kant's method requires testing the maxim's universalizability rather than relying on blanket prohibitions.
When encountering Kantian ethics questions, always look for whether the maxim captures the genuine moral principle at stake. Overly specific details that don't affect the moral nature of the act are red flags for improper formulation.
- According to Kant's Formula of Humanity, which manager's action is most clearly morally impermissible?
Answer: Manager B, because they are using Manager A's disclosure—an act of trust—merely as a means to an end, based on a deception that Manager A could not consent to.
When you encounter questions about Kant's Formula of Humanity, focus on whether someone is being treated "merely as a means" rather than as an end in themselves. The key test is whether a person could rationally consent to how they're being treated if they knew the full truth.
Manager B's action violates the Formula of Humanity because they exploit Manager A's trust-building gesture while secretly planning to avoid future business. Manager A reveals a weakness specifically to build a long-term relationship, but Manager B uses this disclosure purely as a tool for immediate gain while concealing their true intentions. Manager A cannot rationally consent to this treatment because they don't know Manager B's deceptive plan. Manager B treats Manager A merely as a means to profit, not as a rational agent deserving honesty.
Choice A misapplies the concept—Manager A isn't using people as mere means, but rather making a strategic business decision that treats Manager B as a potential long-term partner. Choice C incorrectly suggests that profit maximization automatically makes actions permissible under Kantian ethics; Kant's framework evaluates the means, not just the ends. Choice D focuses on universalizability (the Categorical Imperative's first formulation) rather than the Formula of Humanity, and trust-building strategies can actually be universalized without contradiction.
Remember that Kantian ethics questions often hinge on deception and whether people have the information needed to give genuine consent. Look for scenarios where someone's intentions are hidden or where trust is being exploited—these typically violate the Formula of Humanity.
- A person needs to borrow money but knows they will be unable to repay it. They consider making a false promise to repay the loan to a friend. According to the first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative (the formula of universal law), why is this action morally impermissible?
Answer: Universalizing the maxim 'I will make a false promise to get what I want' would destroy the very institution of promising, making the agent's action logically self-defeating.
The correct answer is A because it accurately identifies a 'contradiction in conception.' If the maxim of making false promises were universalized, the concept of a promise would become meaningless, as no one would believe any promise. This makes the intended act of making a promise to secure a loan impossible. B is incorrect as it uses consequentialist reasoning (focusing on bad outcomes), not Kantian reasoning. C describes a 'contradiction in will,' which applies to imperfect duties (like helping others), not the perfect duty to refrain from false promises. D uses reasoning from virtue ethics, which focuses on character rather than the nature of the act itself.
- Kant begins his Groundwork by stating that a 'good will' is the only thing good without qualification. How does the categorical imperative relate to this concept of the good will?
Answer: The categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality that a good will necessarily follows; it is the law that a perfectly rational and good will gives to itself.
The correct answer is A. For Kant, a good will is one that acts from duty, not merely in accordance with it. The categorical imperative is the formal principle that dictates what our duties are. It is the law that a will, when it is good, follows. Thus, the categorical imperative articulates the principle of action for a good will. B reverses the relationship; the good will is what chooses to follow the law, it isn't the result of it. C offers a consequentialist interpretation. D grounds the good will in emotions, which Kant explicitly argues against as the basis for morality.
- According to Kant, the duty of beneficence (helping others) is an imperfect duty. Which of the following best explains the concept of an imperfect duty?
Answer: It is a duty that requires us to adopt a certain maxim (e.g., to promote the happiness of others), but it allows for latitude in deciding when and how to act on that maxim.
When encountering questions about Kantian ethics, focus on understanding how Kant categorizes moral duties and what distinguishes perfect duties from imperfect ones.
Kant's concept of imperfect duties centers on moral requirements that specify an end or goal we must adopt, while leaving flexibility in how we pursue that end. The duty of beneficence exemplifies this perfectly: you're morally required to adopt the maxim of helping others and promoting their happiness, but Kant recognizes you cannot help everyone at all times. You have discretion in choosing when, how, and whom to help, as long as you genuinely commit to this moral principle. This makes option C correct—imperfect duties require adopting certain maxims but allow latitude in their application.
Option A describes perfect duties, not imperfect ones. Perfect duties like "never lie" or "keep promises" specify exact actions with no room for discretionary judgment about when or how to comply.
Option B mischaracterizes imperfect duties as merely supererogatory (beyond duty). For Kant, imperfect duties are genuinely required—you would be morally blameworthy for completely rejecting beneficence, even though you have flexibility in practicing it.
Option D describes consequentialist ethics, which Kant explicitly rejected. Kantian duties derive from universal principles and rational maxims, not from calculating outcomes in specific situations.
Remember this distinction: perfect duties tell you exactly what to do or avoid, while imperfect duties tell you what kind of person to be while leaving room for practical judgment in implementation.
- A maxim of action can fail the universalization test by generating either a 'contradiction in conception' or a 'contradiction in will.' Which of the following scenarios describes a maxim that generates a contradiction in conception?
Answer: An indebted person decides to borrow money by falsely promising to pay it back, knowing the very idea of a promise would be incoherent if this maxim were universal.
The correct answer is A. A contradiction in conception occurs when universalizing a maxim makes the maxim itself, or the action it proposes, logically impossible or self-defeating. If everyone made false promises, the institution of promising would cease to exist, making it impossible to make a promise in the first place. B and D describe contradictions in the will, where the universalized world is possible but could not be rationally willed. C uses consequentialist reasoning, not a Kantian analysis of a maxim's logical properties.
