Prepare a response to this: Kant believed in something called categorical imperatives.

Prepare a response to this: Kant believed in something called categorical imperatives. This means there are rules that must always be followed, no matter what. One rule is to always tell the truth. So, Kant would probably tell the librarian she must protect the caller’s privacy and not tell the detective anything. Lying or breaking a promise is always wrong to Kant. This means doing whatever results in the most happiness for the most people. I think sometimes we need to break rules or promises if it will prevent something bad from happening. Protecting a criminal’s privacy is not as important as stopping a rapist, in my view. The librarian should help the detective to protect other women in the community. Following her librarian code strictly seems less important than potentially saving someone from being raped. So, I think Bentham and Mill’s approach makes more sense in this case. The good of the community is more important here. The reference librarian faced a “tough choice” between protecting the privacy of the caller who asked about rape laws and helping the police detective catch a potential rapist. An advocate of Kant’s categorical imperatives would likely advise the librarian not to tell the detective anything about the caller. This is because one of Kant’s key categorical imperatives is that lying or breaking a promise is always morally wrong, regardless of the consequences. Kant believed that moral rules must be followed absolutely and allowing any exceptions undermines the entire ethical framework. The librarian promised to protect the confidentiality of library patrons as part of her professional code. So from a Kantian perspective, she is ethically bound to honor that commitment and keep the caller’s information private, even if it means a criminal may go uncaught. In contrast, a utilitarian philosopher like Bentham or Mill would likely counsel the librarian to give the detective the caller’s name and number. A Kantian believes the right to privacy is inviolable and makes no exceptions. A utilitarian believes rights can be overridden if doing so prevents greater harm. The librarian must decide which ethical framework she finds more compelling when the two values come into irreconcilable conflict.I personally find the utilitarian view more persuasive in this case. While I believe protecting privacy and upholding professional codes of ethics are vitally important, there are extreme situations where those principles must yield to the urgent need to protect human life and prevent terrible crimes like rape. The trauma inflicted on rape victims is so severe that I think stopping a potential perpetrator is worth the cost of compromising confidentiality in this one instance. As a woman myself, I would feel awful if the librarian withheld the information and then another woman in the community was sexually assaulted by the same caller the following night, as Kidder suggests. The librarian would always wonder if she could have prevented it by cooperating with the detective. While it may seem like a violation of her professional integrity, I believe it is ultimately the most ethical course of action to put the safety of vulnerable women in her community first. The right to be free from violent assault must take precedence over the right to total privacy in this case. At the same time, I understand the librarian’s concerns about going down a slippery slope and worries this could lead to a “police state” if taken too far. It’s critical that any breaches to confidentiality be exceedingly rare and limited to extreme threats like imminent violence. If the detective was simply on a fishing expedition or interested in the caller for a petty crime, I would be far more hesitant to disclose,