For my philosophy exam last year I wrote a short story on Kant's Categorical Imperative, explaining why no rational and universal moral law is possible since right and wrong actions can never be universally applied. There are so many variables to factor in that we cannot ever categorically say any action is right or wrong, which leads to consequentialist territory. This school of thought states that decisions must be made with the consequences of your actions in mind. The two schools are polar opposites, as opposite as Viacheslav Datsik and what most people would call sanity.
The two theories do however agree on some points. For example, it is morally justifiable to be happy for MiddleEasy reader and now 15-4 Chris Camozzi after the New Mexico Athletic Commission overturned the 'draw' decision given for his fight against Joey Villasenor at Shark Fights 15. It is also morally acceptable to question how a miscalculated score card got past so many sets of eyes without being double checked at any stage before the decision was called. So maybe I was wrong after all: there are categorically correct moral actions, and correcting this mistake is one of them. Congratulations on finally getting that 'W' Chris! [Source]