To begin the theory I most closely identify with is the nonconsequentialist view. I agree that utilitarianism does not come first as while happiness is important, duty comes first. As a member of the United States Air Force there isn’t a day that this doesn’t play into my life. The OSHA example in the book directly applies to me. We must uphold OSHA and many other standards that are a stronger obligation. In my job I work in an aircraft parts warehouse, it is my duty to ensure proper accountability of 1.2 billion dollars of aircraft parts. When these are received my team has to very thoroughly count every asset. It would be easy to just read the exterior label on the box and assume that is the proper quantity. That would absolutely make the job less tedious. However, when there is a member of our Alaskan community who flies a small plane and crashes into a mountain, our 176th planes go fly to search for them. If a plane has something break and maintenance has a specific part they need, they get it from us. If we apply the happiness of the worker above the need to properly do the job, there may not be an aircraft part for the plane. Circling around, if we pick the “easy” or “happy/utilitarianism” we may fail our obligation to the Alaskan people. In our work of the military this is not a supererogatory action, but a morally required task.