Kant's Categorical Imperative

Kant is a German philosopher who came up with an ethical theory called Kantianism. Kant believed that people’s actions should be guided by moral laws, and these moral laws considered as universal law. Also, these moral laws must be based on reason. Kantian conclude that the only thing that is called universally good is a good will without any qualification. It doesn’t matter whether the outcome is evil or right if we do an action because of our good will. He also argued that good things without any qualification could be harmful. According to Kant what we want to do or anything that only associate with a consequence is not what is significant rather what we must do or our duty. To answer what makes a moral rule appropriate or not, Kant proposed Categorical Imperative first formulation and second formulation. According to Categorical Imperative first formulation, moral rules that we follow to do a moral
action should be viewed as universal moral rule. And under categorical imperative second formulation, Kant says “ Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end.” According to Kant’s second formulation we shouldn’t treat others as a means of satisfying our goals, rather we should treat them as a rational being. To analyze Jean’s moral action we need to use the two formulation of Categorical Imperative.
Under both formations whether Jean’s action, saving his nephew by using his network ID and knowledge of LM Pharmacy’s security system, is morally wrong or right. If we apply the first Categorical Imperative to analyze Jean’s action, he violated universal moral law, deceiving others. He deceived the island pharmacist. When we universalize deceiving others to escape difficult situations, we find that deceiving is not universally acceptable. Hoewer, Jean was willing that everybody can device others. Then if that were the reality, it will be hard to believe anyone since deceiving is universalized and even the island pharmacy wouldn’t have allowed Jean to get the medication so that Jean could not escape from the situation, the frustration that he might lose his nephew. On the other hand, If we apply the second categorical imperative, Jean violated it, because he used the pharmacist as a means to satisfy his goal, saving his nephew, rather than treating him as a rational
being. In conclusion, under the two Categorical Imperative formations, Jean’s action is morally wrong whether his action’s outcome benefited his nephew or him or their families. The reason that his action is wrong because he did not fulfill his duty, protecting health information, instead what he did is more associated with the consequence of his action not with his good will.