Due to the golden rule of Deontology; categorical imperative: act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people, according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law, (Kant, 1998) it is undeniable that contributing in group projects should be considered as maxim for the reason that groupwork is an essential part of participating in general education in collage that everyone must adhere to, in a functioning capitalist society that mostly requires bachelor’s degree or higher to apply for so-called a proper job which can be assumed that everyone has at least an expectation of cooperation and collaboration to make their own goals succeed since the intellectual capability of human is capable to examine that nobody wants to be exploited by having the undertaking done all alone.

           However, it is fair enough to be curious that isn’t the concept and explanation of categorical imperative has a fundamentally flaw structure that might be leaded into a dispute that has a capability to refute my own argument; for instance, could it be demanded that you can determine such maxim someone must sacrifices themselves working on the projects so the others do not need to participate in if you want to? The answer is yes. Of course, you can establish literally anything as universal law people must follow as long as it is a thoughtful consideration from your capable of reasoning, which in this case the disagreement against my own argument I have given an example earlier cannot be determined as maxim by two main reasons; firstly, it comes to reductio ad absurdum when the standard you are trying to set seems like a hard to swallow pill for many people, and secondly, sacrificing someone is to exploit an advantage from them.

           To clarify my first argument, I am going to use a thought experiment of John Rawls, called the Veil of Ignorance to make the level of understanding more comprehend and easier to catch up. The whole concept of Veil of Ignorance is that to make an objectively decision for operating the societies by doing a social contact behind the veil that keeps people from knowing who they are so no one could not be biased by their personal circumstances, which in this case it is agreeable that nobody would feel contentment to be exploited by having all the groupwork done all alone since no one would have known if they were the one who was exploited or not behind that veil, yet unfortunately this premise support still has a contradict with fundamentalist morals of pure philosophy, which is even the Veil of Ignorance can make best destination of choice impartially, the reason for action; which is the most important thing when it comes to consideration since Deontology has always been backward-looking ethical theory, does not come from unconditionally good intention to do something with respect for the law, but prudence; therefore, this argument is unsound.

           The second argument is more reasonable and has no contradict to its own concept of Deontology. For the fact that according to the essay, Kant values and emphasizes considerably about the respect for the laws, together with for person or other being that has potential to access and understand universal law, rational being has to have a mutual respect by giving the same response of regard to one another. Consequently, when first principle; categorical imperative, which is capable to be reached just by rationality, bound to respect, moral agent in this theory will eventually be considered as a moral patient as well, which this kind of acting and being acted upon in accordance with moral law known as Kingdom of ends; the principle of humanity as an end-in-itself, which in general situation case it will exclude people with cerebral palsy, dementia, or any other brain damage that make them have lost capability to understand the universal law as a consequent results, but in this particular circumstance we are discussing about, the pupils that have enough intellectual capability to go to college, would probably have sufficient potential to reach out universal law too, yet still insist exploiting and taking advantage from other rational being without any respect; neither for the law, nor for the person. Therefore, it can be demanded that not participating in group projects is properly considered as morally wrong.

           From Utilitarianism’s standpoint of view, to achieving the purpose of its first principle; the greatest happiness, which advocates actions that foster pleasure and oppose actions that produce the reverse product of happiness, the important issue that need to be come into the consideration is the consequent quantity of pleasure that might be produced after because of the action, not the action itself. For this reason, there is not fixed rule which could be applied in every circumstance to be the maxim so that the actions can easily be judged like solving algebra, but the different solution for the different particular situation so it would lead the results to the best outcome of each circumstance; therefore, there is no obvious premise support indicating that not contributing to groupworks is an absolute morally wrongness although the action such exploiting other human will eventually come to reduction to absurdity because of its contradicting against moral judgement that man has.

           To point out how reductio ad absurdum it could be being ethical according to the first principle of the greatest happiness alone in some particular circumstance, I will use the following hypothetical example to give an instance which situation that forcing someone into sacrificing themselves working all the projects can be considered as an ethical things to do. In the scenario that Mr. A is randomly assigned to the groupwork full of a bunch of people who have depression, the project could have made all of them miserable and stressful which can produce three times of suffering he can cause if he having all the job done alone. Consequently, if Mr. A would like to be ethical according to the groundwork of Utilitarianism, he should work on the whole undertaking by himself and tell the others to do nothing so they won’t produce more reverse product of pleasure than they already did, which is not a commonly acceptable pill to swallow for the reason that after observation and empirical evidences from a posteriori knowledge, the fact that nobody would like to be taken advantage appears as a result.

           As an ethical theory that was conceived during the Enlightenment period, even dividing rightness and wrongness from results as the kind of pleasure sometimes reduction to absurdity, there never has no dilemma in any situation for the reason that everything can be measure in the same judgmental scale with no exception. In general circumstance, the pupils that are capable to attend in university’s class have the similar mental state or approximately not so much difference; therefore, it is undeniable that not participating in group projects and passing the whole responsibility to other group mates increase way more stressfulness, hatefulness, and fatigue, which logically can be considered as some kind of reverse product of happiness than the pleasure from the convenient of receiving points without contributing personal effort that might occur to a few people. Therefore, in most of circumstances, it can be demanded that not taking part in group projects should be considered as morally wrong, deduced from the basic assumption of Utilitarianism.