A strict ethnologist would have no qualms about doing his duty. The Seven Oaks Philosophy website states, "Theories in this category (demonology) address the question of what makes one action right and another one wrong irrespective of the consequences of the action. " That means no matter the result a strict ethnologist will do his duty. I, the computer programmer, have sworn an oath to never intervene in any government action.
If I were to interrupt the launch, that action would be ring, because I would be intervening in government actions, without giving any thought to the consequences after the launch. So a true ethnologist would not stop the launch nor divert the flight path and I believe my true duty would be a computer programmer that will not mess in government business. Let us put the situation to the test of Cant's Categorical Imperative. "The only thing GOOD about the act is the WILL, the GOOD WILL. That will is to do our DUTY.
What is our duty? It is our duty to CT in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people. " (http://www. ICC. CUNY. Dude/ Categorical_eliminative. HTML) So let's put this to the test- would I want Delta's (or any other country) computer programmer to Just do his Job and not stop millions of people dying? Of coarse I would want him to stop the launch, and thus l, using CLC should stop the launch. But would these actions be fulfilling my duty?
Using Cant's rainfalls I believe it would because my duty would not be Just a computer programmer, but our duty Is to act In such a manner that we would want everyone else to act. These entirely two different actions would definitely put the strict ethnologist at odds with Emmanuel Cant's philosophy. Not so much In doing our duty, as using the philosophy to determine WHAT Is our duty. If I truly am the computer programmer In this scenario, I would definitely not allow the launch to happen and face the consequences of not doing my assigned Job.