Respond to Discussion Post

Deontological ethics are "concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions" (2014, Para 1).  They are duty-based ethics.  So, based on that definition, a strict deontologist would think about his duty to the company.  He would remember the solemn oath he took and adhere to that because that is his duty.  Based on that reasoning, your duty would be to the company.  But if you say that your duty is to the job you were given, then that would change the entire outcome.  If your duty is to your job, you would focus on doing exactly what your job was, which is to program.  After reading the email, you would know the code is wrong so your duty would be to fix the programming.

Kant's Categorical Imperative on the other hand says "to act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your own person or the person of another, always as an end, not simply as a means" (Leonard, 2016).  This essentially means to respect each other and ourselves.  So if you were to take that route, would you be able to respect yourself by allowing World War III to occur?  Would you be able to respect the sinister government officials knowing what they were plotting?  That is very doubtful.  Kant believes in morality and it should be a part of you.

A strict deontologist and Immanuel Kant's thinking would be at odds.  A deontologist would be focusing on his duty whereas Kant would be thinking of respect and moral law.  Both of these ideas can work together but it's not necessarily good for duty to be without respect and morals.  They really ought to go hand in hand for the best outcome.