¶ … expert security software programmer works top secret national government country Zulu. There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment -- he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for -- which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II -- it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that such a person would feel no remorse about the situation...

He or she would not feel culpable about the action or its effects that they produced -- whereas a consequentialist certainly would. A deontologist would believe that any action other than following one's duty would not be morally defensible. In fact, deontologists believe that morality is based on upholding virtues such as following procedures, performing one's duty, and other sorts of obligations that exist independent of their results. The duty of the programmer is to program code regardless of the ramifications of doing so. By following that obligation to perform his or her professional duties, such a deontologist effectively absolves himself of any moral complications or ambiguity resulting from such an action -- and indeed, is pleased to be of service and to have performed his or her duty well.
Although Kantian ethics is typically considered a part of deontology (and…