Respond to a students' posts and argue against each position, using egoism, or virtue ethics to support your position. Include ethics-related terms in your response, and support the response with references to the week's readings. "Kant's categorical imperative emphasizes that individuals must act according to principles that can be universalized, treating humanity as an end rather than merely as a means. In the context of the photograph of the dying Sudanese child stalked by a vulture, Kevin Carter arguably had a moral obligation, under Kantian ethics, to intervene and assist the child. The categorical imperative would compel Carter to act not based on mere consequences or personal gain but according to the universal moral duty to preserve human dignity and life. Specifically, the maxim under Kant's framework might be phrased as, "One ought to help those in immediate danger when one has the capacity to do so." If Carter had adhered to this principle, his action would have demonstrated an ethical commitment to treating the child not as an object of a compelling photograph but as an autonomous being with inherent worth. Thus, Kantian ethics would posit it as an unqualified moral duty for Carter to prioritize the child's welfare, regardless of the practical or professional challenges such intervention might entail. Reflecting on the Kantian position, I find myself in partial agreement with its emphasis on universal moral duties and respect for human dignity. Kant's framework