In this case, ethical guidelines will be followed; thus, success in providing services for the persons in question. As seen in the work of Rachels & Rachels (2011), Kantian ethics are founded on the thought that human beings are rational beings and have the capability of governing themselves. The authors also indicate that from the Kantian point of view all human beings have the right to be treated with deference and self-respect regardless of their affiliation (Rachels & Rachels, 2011). From this argument, it is evident that equality and freedom are major tenets of the Kantian ethical argument.
On the other hand, utilitarianism ethical view argues that actions should be done for the great good of all persons (Rachels & Rachels, 2011). The view also indicates that all choices have consequences and that all actions will evaluated based on their consequences. From this ethical view, it is justified to indicate that the utilitarian view is consequential in nature as it makes sure that all ends are justified by their means (Rachels & Rachels, 2011). The ethical view also ensures that the overall welfare is maximized at all costs.
For Hurricane Katrina, the utilitarian and Kantian views are relevant. Most importantly, since disasters present different conflicts of interests, response to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina need to be discussed if the common good has to be achieved. Regarding Hurricane Katrina, there was a general feeling that the greatest good was giving help that will suit the community at large. This is to mean that the benefits were to be maximized for the community. In regard to the utilitarian approach, the healthcare providers were seen to have a challenge of whether to care for the ones that were badly injured or deal with the patients that had the chances of surviving with proper treatment given to them at the required time (Morrison, 2009).
In line with the utilitarian argument, the