Utilitarian theory of ethics stipulates that an action will be judged right or wrong depending on the consequences it produces. In this respect an action which produces results which are for common good to all is regarded as morally right. Therefore for one to act morally it is paramount to weigh the consequences of the action whereby progress is made if the actions will be predicted to have a common good to all. Therefore it is emphatic on the consequences of the action. Deontology theories on the other hand stipulate that morality should be measured with the ability to fulfill duties and responsibilities. In this respect, each person has a duty to fulfill in the society and hence should adherence to such duties and responsibilities. In addition people are attached to the specific organizations that they work for and they should act within the interest of the organizations.
The ethical issue which surrounds the case of Alex Rodriquez is whether it is ethically prudent to suspend him from the major baseball league. According to utilitarian principles the consequence of the action should produce happiness to the greatest majority (Banks, 2004). In the case that Alex goes scot flee it might result to a flood gate of cases of other base ball players who might want to use the steroids for muscle strengthening. Further are glaring consequences if the players who use the steroids continue to use them without facing the law. This might put the other players who do not want to use the steroid or in other words law abiding players to a great disadvantage whereby they will be having unfair disadvantage compared to the ones who use the steroids. Alex suspension form the major league may raise eyebrows especially if he is a revered player. The cause of his suspension must therefore be unveiled to the public (Goodin, 1995).
As stipulated by Darwall, (2003), one has the right to data information privacy. The revelation of this data will have glaring consequences to the private life of this person whereby it might taint his name. Considering all the underlying circumstances there are the individual names will be dented and he might face it as a punishment for using steroid drugs. Further his right to information will be infringed whereby he has the powers to control the information in possession of the baseball body. If he is suspended, the cause of his suspension must be given of which might not augur well with the right to information. On the other side of the coin utilitarian holds that one should act for the common good. In this case, sparing the player will have grave consequences on the baseball fraternity. Hence it is prudent to suspend him from the major league for a considerable number of years but not for life. By doing that you have acted to maxim and the consequences of suspension are predicted to be more appealing to the stakeholder than sparing him (Gaukronger, 2001).
According to deontology principles a person who acts in the best interest to the organization he is attached to has acted morally (Spinoza, 2006). The glaring question is whether Alex was acting within the best interests to fulfill his duties in a prudent manner. To start with, the effect of the steroids on the performance of the duty has to be evaluated to the latter. In this respect Alex might have been taking the steroids for two motives, the first motive is for fun and the second on is enhancement to perform the duties. Deontologists would justify the behavior of the player on the pretext that he was engaging in dangerous behavior knowing very well that it was harmful to his health to save his team. As it has bee indicated by Emmanuel Kant, an action may produce bad results but it was good intended (Kizza, 2010). The intention of the base ball player therefore needs to be reevaluated. On the positive side of the story the base ball player should have good intentions of playing the game to the satisfaction of the funs as well as the business it self. Alex indulged in this perilous activity to salvage the business by making the game lively as well as securing wins for his team. As indicated by Smith (2004), any individual, organization or a body that holds information that was voluntarily provided by an individual has a duty to ensure that confidentiality is observed. Alex voluntarily accepted the test of the fluids of his body on the condition that the people the confidentiality of the results would be observed. Since he has worked as an employee of the baseball club, the employers have a duty to act morally in protection of their employee. As revealed by Hawthorne, (2009) the rights to privacy do not only apply to the employees but they also feature to the employers whereby they should not disclose harmful data to the public.