The Deontology Approach

...

Deontology’s Categorical Imperatives is a valid method of ethical analysis, because while it does not consider the consequences, but it considers the respect of humanity. Ethical actions should respect humanity, without it humanity would cease to exist from contradictory behavior. In America, Deontology would be a successful and valid method of analysis, but in countries in which rights are not equal; Deontology would not provide similar outcomes as in America. In Middle Eastern and some Asian Countries, the rights of women and members of lower class statuses, do not have the same rights as men or those of high ranking classes. The rights of those would not be considered in Deontology because they would not be considered rational beings because of their status. Situations in which acts are performed against those without rights would be considered moral because those without rights are not considered rational beings and do not have the right of autonomy. In contrast to Kant’s deontological ideas, Utilitarianism believes an act can be deemed moral by simply evaluating the consequences of the act. Utilitarianism “holds that an action is right if it produces, or if it tends to produce, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action” (DeGeorge, 2010, p44). There are no other evaluation tests to determine of an act is immoral or moral with Utilitarianism. Utilizing either Deontological analysis or Utilitarianism analysis is acceptable because the results will be the same. Under Utilitarianism, there are more negative consequences than good consequences from the act of not providing proper patient care.

The veil of ignorance can be used in Human resources, when hiring personal for different positions. Some positions well be overwhelming for a female to hirer for. They still can apply and most likely well not get hired for the position.

Reference:

DeGeorge, R.T. (2010). Business ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall.