However, that should not suggest that its pursuit is wholly worthless. There is some value in striving to attain this ideal, even if it can never be realized. Despite the appeal of the categorical imperative, follows its dictates proves to be seemingly impossible, and even in some instances, undesirable. When adhering to the principles of Kantian morality, it is clear that moral reasoning is reduced to a strict moral calculus, whereby there is only one correct answer to the question, "What am I to do?" This process, moreover, does not allow for any deviations from this strict normative standard, and morally ambiguous areas become non-existent. However, in some situations, certain actions that are in violation of the categorical imperative might be morally necessary. For example, during the Holocaust, people often had to lie to the Nazi SS when harboring Jews in their home. It seems obvious that lying violates at least formulations one and two of the categorical imperative. In the first formulation, the maxim cannot be universalized, for the same reason that one is not entitled to lie to secure a loan; if that maxim became a universal law, then the SS would not even have cause to believe the lie in the first place. In the second formulation, it seems as though the SS are being used merely as a means to secure some external end. In essence, by lying to the SS, one is not recognizing their intrinsic moral worth. So, Kant is forced to concede that when the SS inquires as to whether one is harboring Jews, it becomes necessary to tell the truth, thereby sacrificing one's own life, and the lives of those seeking shelter, which seem like a rather unwelcome consequence.

Aside from extreme moral situations like the example above, Kantian morality does little to resolve many of the everyday moral debates present in contemporary...

It is often the case that different groups hold different moral judgments; for example, those who are in support of abortion and a women's right to choose, contrasted with those who are pro-life, and find abortion to be morally wrong. Within the context of these debates, Kant is forced to say that one side in this debate is necessarily wrong, since moral judgments cannot conflict; when they do, one side of the debate must be wrong, as moral principles are based solely on a priori principles of reason, and, like the correctness of a mathematical axiom, there is only one correct answer. Anything else is logically inconsistent. If Kantian morality were correct, then it would help to resolve much of the debates present in society. Mathematicians might waver somewhat on their interpretations of the rules governing mathematics, but, for the most part, there is agreement. Morality, on the other hand, is full of debates, and many people cannot agree on its correct specification. It would seem as if morality is something that is not reducible to a priori reasoning, as there is much ambiguity present in certain moral situations. It seems morally permissible to lie to save the lives of others, and this is seen, not through reason, but through the concrete particulars of everyday interactions. When faced with the question of, "What am I to do," it seems as though it is desirable to take into account a variety of factors, such as emotions, and other things relating to individual experience, and not rely solely on detached rational principles.
So, strict adherence to the categorical imperative cannot inform every aspect of moral life. Certain situations are morally ambiguous, and no amount of a priori reasoning will lead to the correct choice; in fact, it is debating whether there is one correct answer to the question of, "What am I to do?" Instead, it is helpful to factor in all available external information, and then use that information to arrive at the best possible moral choice. This choice, moreover, might take into account a priori rationality, as well as a posteriori experience and empirical evidence.