Think of someone real or fictional whom some people regard as a "hero" for helping others, stopping something bad or evil, and so forth, even though by doing so they violated what would normally be considered a moral rule. For example, they may have lied, broken a promise, stolen, harmed someone innocent, or even murdered, but done so with good intentions.

Try to think of any example that we would either all be familiar with, or something we can easily look up (in other words, don't just make something up or describe something generic). Many examples are given in the guidance and the readings, including people like Robin Hood, Edward Snowden, etc. Please don't use an example that someone else has already used!

Now here's the fun part: once you have thought of your example, evaluate what they did according to Kant's Categorical Imperative. Is what the person did moral, or immoral, according to the CI?

Do you agree? If you agree, how would you explain to the person in your own words why what they did was wrong? If you don't agree, how would you respond to the question, "what if everyone did that?"

When responding to your peers, consider whether they have correctly applied the Categorical Imperative, and if they agreed with Kant, consider what a consequentialist might say; if they disagreed with Kant, consider what a Kantian might say, and use those considerations as a springboard for dialogue and discussion.

This should be between 650-750 words.