Title: Deontological Ethics: Should Anna receive a heart?

I enter this discourse/dialogue with some reservations, because ethics is subjective to the individual. Even Kant would agree based on his heteronymous conclusions. I say this with tongue in cheek, because I believe that 99% of the population does not understand their own prior. In other words they are unaware of past influences that effect/affect their decision making. Ethics then, becomes a trap for those making decisions for others. As we assume, ethics argues what is: right/wrong, good/bad, prudent/inconsiderate, etc., etc., & etc. however it is far from being that clear. If I may, place indulge my efforts at clarifying my point. Lets say a happily married man meets another person who attracts him physically and emotionally, when he is around this other person, he feels a metamorphosis in his inter-being that requires action, he knows the feeling is true because the object of his attraction feels the same. Here in lies the dilemma, what to do? Should he act on his feeling, by which will satisfy his desire to possess this other person or should he suppress his emotions because to act would put his marriage in jeopardy. Based on such scenario the moral thing to do, would be to suppress those emotional desires because it is the right thing to do based on any number of reasons, i.e., the law, marriage vowels, social norms, personal responsibilities to his spouse and a sense of moral obligation. The latter seems he most plausible right, lets say the married man acts on his emotions and finds out that his choice made him happier than he had ever been. But to maintain such happiness he has to live a lie or divorce his spouse which means breaking up all he built, including his family. This argues another scenario and ad infinitum. To the above scenario, Kant would argue that we as humans have a duty to act in a manner in accordance with moral law. Kant would further argue that for humans to meet such moral obligation require logic and reasoning. Kants premise then, that all humans should make decisions based on moral reasoning. This is Kants (categorical imperative) an intuitiveness to act according. Not to use people as a means to an end but but an end unto itself. Therefore, I choose to argue Kants, End in Themselves principle to deal with Anna heart scenario. To do so would imply my intentions of good will toward Anna, such good will would cover Kants, (categorical imperative), to do what I could to ensue Anna had an equal chance at living a productive life as long as possible. This would be my duty not only to Anna but my fellow man. From such actions, however, only applies to me because of my priori (past ontological/teleological ethics) Cited reference: Immanuel Kants, Duty and Categorical Rules (pp. 217- 234) in James P. Sterba: Ethics the big question 2nd ed., (2009)