Ethics/Professional development
Question 1: Is there an Ethical Dilemma?
Read the case study below and then briefly discuss any ethical issues related to any of the people mentioned (by name) in the scenario. (Maximum 1 typed page)
Question 2: Four-step Ethical Analysis and Decision Making Process
Do the more structured ethical analysis and decision making process (as done in Ethics Practice Class (Week 6), following the procedures outlined in Kallman and Grillo). Complete this analysis using the following headings and associated questions and/or statements. These are the same headings as used in the Ethics practice Class for the case study "Landscape".
Step I. Understand the Situation
a) List and number the relevant facts. Remember just the facts here - no judgements or opinions - only the facts as presented in the scenario.
b) Which of these raise an ethical issue? What is the potential or resulting harm? From the above listed facts- identify which raise an ethical issue and, of course, what is/are the ethical issue(s) that the fact raises. There will be quite a few ethical issues in this case study - some closely related while others may be/seem unrelated.
c) List the stakeholders involved. Identify all the "players" that are involved - this includes all the named individuals/people, as well as groups (e.g. the company itself) etc.
Step II. Isolate the Major Ethical Dilemma
Need to identify from all the listed ethical issues you have detected (in Step 1. b above) which is the main/major ethical Issue that needs to be dealt with NOW. That is, which is the ethical issue from which all or most of the issues detected above are caused by or are a consequence of, and if dealt with promptly (↔ NOW) would also solve many of those other issues.
Step III. Ethical Analysis
Consequentialism:
A. If action in Step II is done, who will be harmed?
B. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will be harmed?
C. Which alternative results in the least harm?
D. If action in Step II is done, who will benefit?
E. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will benefit?
F. Which alternative results in the maximum benefit?
Consequentialism Comments (on the choices at C. and F.):
Make your comments/assessments regarding your answers to C and F (above) here. It may be that the conclusions arrived at in answering the questions above appear contradictory or may logically follow - either case will require your comments... ↔ where you can "make sense" of it all ...
Rights and Duties:
G. List relevant abridged rights and neglected duties.
That is, when considering the stakeholders, who has had their rights "violated or ignored", and who has neglected their duties with respect to the events as outlined in the given scenario.
Rights and Duties Comments:
Again make your comments/assessments here - often a duty may appear to contradict a responsibility - this is your opportunity to "make sense of it all".
Kant's Categorical Imperative:
H. If action in Step II is done, who will be treated with disrespect?
I. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will be treated with disrespect?
J. Which alternative is preferable?
K. If action in Step II is done, who will be treated unlike others?
L. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will be treated unlike others?
M. Which alternative is preferable?
N. Are there benefits if everyone did action in Step II?
O. Are there benefits if nobody did action in Step II?
P. Which alternative is preferable?
Step III Discussion. This is where you may summarize your views/opinions on the results you have discovered in your ethical analysis involving Consequentialism, Rights and Duties and Categorical Imperative above. It is also the place where you can give/outline your reasons, relative weights (or importance) attributed to your views on each of the results above. However your reasons must be supported by the evidence provided by the ethical analysis above
Step IV. Making a decision
a) Make a defensible ethical decision. The statement, "make a defensible decision" implies that the decision is as a consequence of having done the ethical analysis above and all/most of the results (answers to the questions posed) strongly indicate that to solve the main ethical dilemma the - "following"-- has to be done, NOW! Typically this is in the form off an action statement action that - "something" - has to be done. Typically the "something" may be to: hire/fire someone, immediately close down ... , call in the security experts, ... , etc. depending on the ethical dilemma being addressed.
b) List the steps needed to implement your defensible ethical decision. Having made the bold action statement (↔ ethical decision) above, here is the place to outline the actual steps that need to be taken to achieve your decision. This may also involve steps that also address "lesser" but related (to the main/major) ethical dilemma. This normally takes the form of who has to do what and when - several people may need to do several different things in order to implement the decision - these actions need to be given here.
Case Study - Transcript
Alice was a bright, vivacious, popular systems programmer working at a private company called ACE Inc., one of the major graphics software providers in Australia.
Alice had proved to be a considerable asset to ACE and was very happy working there. Alice had been sent on many professional development courses involving systems programming, security, networks, etc. since joining ACE (after graduating from University 5 years ago). As a result, Alice had developed considerable expertise and knowledge concerning all of ACE's systems - which included a deep understanding of ACE's security systems, security software being used - including their ever-changing updates and configurations. Her current job at ACE largely consisted of computer security. She had developed a sound reputation both within and external to ACE for being proactive (always trying to anticipate a problem before it happened) as she tried to provide solutions or preventative measures before any damage could be done to the company's resources - especially its software and data. She maintained a keen interest in and had an extensive knowledge of all the problems concerned with ACE's security procedures, as well as all of ACE's systems and networks.
As Alice was excited by her work, she pursued her interests in systems security software at home on her own computer. Over a period of time, Alice developed an anti- virus program in which she took great pride. As there were many competitors vying for market share in this lucrative environment, Alice realised that, to make her program stand out from other competitors, she would design it and make it operate in a network environment.
Alice continued developing her program: she purchased extra hardware and software to create her own small network to continue developing her design. As the program neared completion, Alice dreamed of creating a start-up company that would take her prototype and upgrade it to be a commercial distribution: marketed for all users, no matter how complex a network environment was involved.
The basic features of the program, for which Alice was very proud, included:
• A sophisticated Graphics User Interface (GUI)
• Help screens and graphics for every activity
• Procedures for backing out of any potentially hazardous activity (a way forward and a way back at every progress point)
• It could recognise and destroy both old and new viruses
• It described any virus that it found in detail by its type, its source, and its structure
• Additionally (one of the features that Alice was most proud of) there was a validation feature. The user could copy each virus to a diskette (or quarantined memory location), and modify the existing virus and then let the program loose on this new, redesigned version of the virus. The program never failed to destroy the newly created virus every time!
Having completed as many trials as possible at home, Alice then approached her manager, Ted, the Head of IT Security at ACE, offering the program to ACE at a discount price, as her first customer. Alice was aware that ACE had its share of virus infections recently and that this program could greatly improve ACE's security.
Ted examined Alice's proposal - particularly the features, however he immediately expressed many misgivings about the program. He told Alice that she had in fact developed an extremely dangerous program. "If ACE were to make it available on the network it would be like leaving a kid in the candy store. ACE certainly won't buy this
program! In fact I am sure that ACE wouldn't touch it even if it were free! It's just entirely too dangerous."
Alice was shocked. She considered her program to be an unquestionable asset. How could Ted take it on himself to refuse it? She decided to give up her dreams of making money and, instead, became a consultant on the internet in her own time by releasing her program (source and executable) on a Bulletin Board System and providing help (as a consultant) to prospective users on the program's features. On deciding to release the program, she published it under the name Safe-Tee and consulted under the name Lock-Smith.
Ted discovered what Alice had done when he became aware that a Bulletin Board was hosting a system based security program that was creating a lot of interest in the industry. To Ted's horror he found that it was exactly the same program that Alice had previously shown him. It was clear to Ted that Alice was indeed Lock-Smith, so he immediately fired Alice (by formally issuing her with the required notice of employment termination) and informed his manager, Sheila Silk. Alice has now been out of a job for two weeks. But there is considerable interest in her program on the internet, and Lock- Smith receives many new enquiries daily.
Ted's manager, Sheila Silk, the executive Head of IT at ACE (who had privately considered Alice to be a bit of a "scatter-brain") always had a high opinion of Ted and supported Ted's decision to sack Alice with no further review of the case being necessary. As it happens, Sheila has just received an urgent email from Busta Bigwig, the owner of the ACE. Busta had just been briefed by an independent head-hunter (Look-Ahead) concerning an innovative developer on the internet called Lock-Smith. In his email, Busta instructed Sheila to find Lock-Smith and offer Lock-Smith a position immediately in order to bring Lock-Smith's expertise to ACE. Sheila, knowing exactly who Lock-Smith actually is, pours herself a strong cup of coffee and considers the situation.