or did not commit such acts, I honestly don't know. " Now I know that might sound a little harsh but follow if you will, focus on the events surrounding the year 1960 in regards to the debates between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. During the debates Not once did Kennedy ever refer to his opponent by his name, and never once did he use Nixon's past as a ladder for his own gain. Kennedy obviously had a philosophy that had a viewpoint of, If I care what my opponent has done, and if I focus on his past then all I am doing is bringing his name up and allowing the voters to hear his name more. So being the ethical egoist that he was, even though this could be considered rude not to even mention Nixon, he was only concerned about his own self-interest. So instead of confirming or denying the rumor, even though I know it is false, I would focus on my attributes and what I can do for the company. I would make the employer understand through my credentials that I was the best person for that position by focusing on my background, and not giving much thought to the background of the other person. However if I were a follower of the deontologist rule, I would have no choice but to deny the rumors. If I knew the alleged to be false then it would be my moral duty to not only deny, but also possibly go as far as disproving the rumors. On the other hand I would still want the job and as humans would have it the moral fibers by which we are coded are only as strong as we let them be, and thus even though I deny the rumors I still want the job. Since a belief of mine, being a follower of Kant is always act as to treat others as and end and never only as a means. Even though it is my categorical imperative to clear up the false rumors about the racist and sexist slanders accused against the applicant, there is no rule stating that I can not bring up an equally job rendering fact that bares truth and validity. For example I could show proof that the ...
