Final answer:
From a deontological perspective, Mark Yang should not misrepresent himself due to the moral duty to always tell the truth, as lying fails to treat others as ends in themselves. If Mark follows a strict Kantian ethic, he would prioritize truthfulness. However, if he leans towards a pluralistic deontological view, he may weigh the outcomes more heavily when deciding on his course of action.
Step-by-step explanation:
From a deontological perspective, Mark Yang must consider the imperative to not misrepresent oneself. The deontological framework places emphasis on the adherence to absolute moral duties and principles, regardless of the consequences. One of the fundamental principles in deontology, as advocated by Immanuel Kant, is to never lie. The humanity formulation posits that in lying, a person fails to treat others as ends in themselves, thereby disregarding their inherent value as rational beings capable of making decisions based on reason. In this scenario, misrepresentation is inherently wrong because it treats others merely as a means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves.
In situations where there are conflicting perfect duties, such as never telling a lie versus avoiding harm to someone, a deontological approach would still prioritize truth-telling because, according to Kantian ethics, moral rules are considered without exceptions. However, pluralist like Sir William David Ross argue that we must weigh our moral duties, suggesting in cases where telling the truth could cause considerable harm, other factors should be taken into account to reach a moral decision.
Ultimately, if Mark Yang is following a strict Kantian deontological ethic, he must correct the misrepresentation regardless of the potential harm it might cause, as the duty to be truthful maintains precedence. However, if he subscribes to a more pluralistic form of deontology, he may consider the harms of his actions more closely when deciding how to resolve the dilemma.