Genetic Testing in Employment: Deontological and Utilitarian Ethics
This paper analyzes the ethical implications of genetic testing in employment and insurance decisions by applying two major ethical frameworks: deontological ethics, which emphasizes duties and categorical imperatives, and utilitarian ethics, which focuses on outcomes and overall welfare. Using the Burlington Northern Railway v. EEOC case as a foundational example, the paper argues that genetic discrimination conflicts with both American legal intent and utilitarian calculations of harm versus benefit. The deontological analysis reveals tension between capitalist profit-maximization and societal norms of equality and non-harm embedded in civil rights law and religious traditions. The utilitarian perspective demonstrates that corporate profits cannot ethically outweigh potential suffering and loss of life among workers and insurance holders. The paper concludes that while legal precedent remains limited, the ethical case against genetic discrimination is clear under both frameworks.
- Introduction: Genetic testing in employment and ethical frameworks
- Deontological Perspective: Duties and categorical imperatives against discrimination
- Utilitarian Perspective: Outcomes analysis: profit versus human suffering
- Conclusion: Both frameworks reject genetic discrimination in policy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clear application of two contrasting ethical frameworks to a concrete legal case, making abstract philosophy accessible and relevant.
- Strategic use of the Burlington Northern case as both an opening hook and grounding example that illustrates real-world stakes.
- Structured comparative analysis that lets each ethical perspective develop fully before moving to synthesis, avoiding strawman arguments.
- Effective use of counterargument within each framework—acknowledging profit-based justifications before refuting them with deeper moral analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates comparative normative ethics: the systematic application and evaluation of two competing ethical frameworks to the same policy question. Rather than asserting one framework as correct, the author builds each case on its own terms, including internal tensions (e.g., capitalism vs. civil rights intent under deontology), then judges the frameworks against outcomes that both systems recognize as morally weighty (suffering, death, profit). This technique is central to applied ethics coursework and professional ethical reasoning.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a thesis-driven structure with parallel development. The introduction stakes the problem and previews both analytical lenses. Each framework receives its own section, building from principle definition through application to genetic testing, then addressing objections. The conclusion integrates findings across frameworks to reach a unified judgment. This structure makes the paper's logical path transparent and defensible, characteristic of strong undergraduate ethics essays.
Introduction
As with Darwin's theory of evolution, genetic testing has opened new frontiers in understanding medicine, as it allows us, among other things, to understand the degree to which we are predisposed to specific diseases and conditions (Miller, 2007). The case of Burlington Northern Railway v. the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) marked the first time the law had addressed this issue. The railway had been conducting genetic testing on employees for the identification of a specific disorder that in theory predisposed workers to carpal tunnel syndrome (Schafer, 2001). This example illustrates one of the ways in which companies can use genetic information—in this instance to find ways to opt out of insurance and disability payments. Miller (2007) argues that such abuses of knowledge on the basis of bias have been common since the theory of evolution was put forth.
This paper will examine the issue of genetic testing from both a deontological perspective and a utilitarian perspective in order to determine the risks posed by such testing. That genetic testing could be used to deny basic health care or employment opportunities on the basis of genetic makeup is a frightening thought, but one that could occur.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.