Free Paper Samples

We have a large team of skilled writers to choose from to complete your order.

Since the very dawn of time, the challenges in determining wrong and right actions have been considered by many great philosophers. Emmanuel Kant holds the view that humans are free beings who should not be tied to the outcomes of their actions. Kant’s view is guided by the principle of Morality that gives an ethical obligation to human beings in their deeds. The principle of universalizability, according to wood (2017), holds the same view. However, universalizability, as a construct of Kantian ethics goes further and outlines that actions by human beings are out of their control, and should not be used to judge them. Therefore, human beings are to be guided by intuition to do what is right in consideration of others.  For instance, it would be wrong, according to Kantian ethics for a country to give false data on its economy in spite of the benefits it may reap from the international community.

According to Universalizability theory, Categorical imperative is key in any action. Wood (2017) says that we should act in ways that we would wish everyone else to adopt. For the action to satisfy the categorical imperative principle, it must be consistent and acceptable to rational beings across the world. In this regard, stealing from one person to help another person would be violating this principle. Stealing, according to Turner, and Chambers (2006), is wrong, and when you steal from one person to help another person, the person you have stolen from will react negatively while the person you helped may welcome the action. This inconsistency violates the principle of Universalizability.

Acceptability is another key factor for any action to be universally considered right or wrong.  Heinz Dilemma justifies such actions. Some actions that can be consistently received well by the whole world but are not right For instance, Heinz would be supported by the world for stealing the drug to save his wife but would be imprisoned for breaking moral laws (Turner, & Chambers, 2006). Helping others for personal gain is considered selfish. For instance, when one helps people because he benefits from the action may be consistently welcomed by people across the world. However, it is not ethically acceptable. In this regard, stealing to help another person would be right especially when one has more, although it is not acceptable to do such an action.  This is, therefore, a contradiction to the universalizability theory.

Kant believes that human beings should act on the basis of rationally accepted ways.  Kant asserts that actions should be based on universally defensible motives. For this to be possible, personal considerations should not be inclusive of the reasons to act. Therefore, human beings, guided by the principle of universalizability, are bound to act in a particular way because it is the universally accepted rational thing to do. For example, Vincent et al., (2016) present a report of accepted murder cases conducted by police in Florida. It is right for a police officer to shoot at terrorists shooting at civilians because the police are endorsed by law to carry out such operations. Additionally, Vincent et al., (2016) argue that the action of the police would be consistently accepted universally because their reason for the shooting is to protect human life. Stealing to help another person, in regard to rationalism would be contradictory and wrong. This is particularly because the person doing the action of stealing is not endowed by law to do so. Besides, the action of stealing is unethical and irrational.

Conclusively, Morality, categorical imperative, acceptability and universally acceptable motives are key concepts to be considered for any action to be considered ethical. The possibility for rationality to be applied when doing an action and be accepted universally largely depends on set down rules and the motive for such an action. Theft is considered a vice. Therefore, stealing in order to help one out would be universally disregarded and shun out. Consequently, when one steals to help another person, the focus would be on the end benefits rather than the action. This is a contradiction and a wrong action according to Kantian ethics.