Kantian principle of autonomy defines human beings to be rational, and

Kant believes that morality stems from reason and not God, therefore we must
act according to pure reason because we all have the autonomy to do so. The
principle of end elaborates that everyone should treat anyone as an end in it of
themselves and not just a means to an end.
Eleanor freely decided to use her neighbor’s Wi-Fi without asking for
permission. She figured that it was moral to do so as she was not hurting her
neighbor because she is using his excess bandwidth.
Given that Eleanor has her own autonomy, we can evaluate her action
using the principle of autonomy. She acted alone, meaning that she was not
tasked nor obligated to use her neighbor’s Wi-Fi. To know whether her action is
moral or not is by relating the action to everyone. If she was using her neighbor’s
Wi-Fi without permission, is this action universalizable? If everyone used their
neighbor’s excess Wi-Fi bandwidth reason alone could say that this was not
moral. As one group of people pay the Wi-Fi carrier for their services while others
just use their neighbors as a means for free connection. Principle of Autonomy
dictates that acting according to your will at the same time as making universal
law through its maxims. This leads us to the second principle which is Principle of
Ends. Eleanor’s actions are wrong as she is using her neighbor as a means for
Wi-Fi connection and not as an end. In the Principle of Ends, we should treat
everyone in every case as an end not just a means. She is not being in her good
conduct as she is freeloading unbeknownst to her neighbor.
To conclude, Eleanor’s actions are unethical in a Kantian perspective.
Specifically, through the principle of autonomy and principle of ends. She is using
her neighbor as a means to an end, and her action is not universalizable.