wants to? However, "Do not kill except in self-defense' is not any less universalizable than "Do not murder," and the former rule would seem to relate to the history of hum values and also to a doctrine of fairness much better than the latter. The rule nonconsequentialist theories essentially state that there are certain moral absolutes that should never be violated (e. g., rules against killing, mutilating, stealing, and breaking promises). To what extent do you agree or disagree with this idea? Are there certain do's and don'ts to which human beings should always adhere and what are they? Why should they adhere to these moral principles, and what are the reasons behind this view of yours? The response entered here will appear in the performance dashboard and can be viewed by your instructor 3.5.3: Duties versus Incii: