In terms of undercover operations, ethical formalism would most likely:

• A. condemn undercover operations where innocent people are deceived because the actions could not be justified under the categorical imperative
• B. support undercover operations even if innocent people are deceived, as long as the greater good was being served.
• C. support undercover operations under any circumstances
• D. allow undercover operations only if the general community approved the action ahead of time

Answer: (A)

Ethical formalism, rooted in Kantian thinking, says we judge actions by whether the underlying rule could be applied universally and whether we treat people as ends in themselves, not merely as means. Deceiving innocent people in undercover operations treats those individuals as tools to achieve a goal, rather than as autonomous beings with dignity. If the rule behind deception were universalized, trust and social cooperation would collapse, making such deception self-defeating and morally unacceptable. Because outcomes or perceived benefits do not override the obligation to respect persons and to act only on maxims that could be willed as a universal law, undercover deception of innocents would be condemned. Other choices imply that outcomes or broad approval could justify the act, but ethical formalism rejects justifications based on ends since the morality of the act depends on the intrinsic rightness of the rule itself.