1. Three ethical theories
The three ethical theories explained here are: ethical egoism, Kantianism, and rule utilitarianism, with each theory offering a different account of what makes an action a moral—or immoral—action.
Ethical egoism proposes that the only factor which determines the moral value of an action is whether or not that action serves to maximize the self-interest of the person committing it. In other words, an action I take is a moral action if and only if that action results in the fullest possible benefit for myself. Clearly, this view strikes many of us as an odd way to understand morality because it seems to leave little room for the interests of others – and thus excludes what many of us take to be the point of morality. Kantianism takes the different view that what determines the moral worth of an action is not the results it brings about—such as whether it maximizes self-interest—but rather the nature of the will of the person committing the action: A good, rational, promise-keeping, and duty-abiding will is what determines as morally good the actions taken by that will. Notice how Kantianism stands in direct opposition to a view like ethical egoism because it denies the relevance of self-interest. Finally, rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism and is thus a view in which the moral value of an action depends on the extent to which it contributes to overall utility and happiness. Rule utilitarianism, more specifically, proposes that the moral worth of an action depends on the extent to which it conforms to a moral rule which itself tends to contribute to utility and happiness. On this view, an individual action may inadvertently cause unhappiness, but its moral worth lies in its adherence to a moral rule the following of which generally creates happiness (even if it does not in any one case). Notice how rule utilitarianism is unconcerned with the interests of any one person; it is also unconcerned with the goodness of the will of a person committing an action.
2. A scenario:
Given that our class is concerned with ethics and IT professional practices, an interesting scenario to consider in light of the three ethical theories above is that of Edward Snowden and his release of classified information. Snowden worked for the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and, when he discovered their possibly illegal mass surveillance techniques, he took information on those programs and passed it on to journalists. So, according to the three theories presented, was this a moral thing to do? It is not entirely clear whether Snowden’s actions were moral according to ethical egoism – after all, Snowden is now living in exile in Russia and would face a possible life sentence in prison if he returned to the U.S., so his actions were not fully in keeping with his self-interest. However, if Snowden believed in the importance of his actions, then releasing the information may have fulfilled his self-interest.
Kantianism would likely deem Snowden’s actions to be immoral, because those actions required that he break his promises to the NSA to protect the secrecy of classified materials. However, again, it may be that, by releasing information on mass surveillance, Snowden was keeping an implicit promise to protect the public good – arguably a promise the NSA had itself violated.
Finally, rule utilitarianism would likely make the same determinations as Kantianism: Snowden’s actions were not in keeping with the general moral rule against revealing confidential material. However, it could be argued that Snowden was acting in accordance with the more important moral rule to always protect the public good. So, as with the other two theories, there may be conflicting answers to the question of whether Snowden’s actions were moral.
3. Choice and justification:
From these three ethical theories, I would choose Kantianism. This is in part because I think it is very difficult to judge actions solely by their consequences – whether in terms of the maximization of self-interest or the maximization of overall happiness. In addition, I think the notions of a good will, promises, and duties, are all important because the moral worth of actions seem naturally dependent on the goodness of one’s will and whether or not those actions are in keeping with one’s promises and duties. Admittedly, though, I realize that accepting Kantian morality means there will be times when ‘doing the right thing’ may result in damage to one’s self-interest and/or damage to the happiness of many people. But, perhaps that sort of difficultly is definitional of what it is to live and act in a moral way.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. In this assignment, you must produce a video (3 minutes) only.
2. Choose the following topics:
a. Censorship
b. Internet Addiction
c. Cyberbullying
d. Children's Internet Protection Act
e. Teleworking
f. Privacy
g. Software Piracy
h. Whistle blower
3. Based on the topics you choose, discuss the followings:
4. From the scenario you have created in Question 3(b), produce a short video that demonstrates the scenario.
a. Introduction (the title you choose) (2 pages)
b. Example related cases on previous study for the topics you choose (1 page).
c. Describe one scenario that reflects your chosen topics(1 page)
d. Ethics Evaluation in the chosen topics (2 pages)
i. Use only any TWO (2) workable theory:
ii. For example if you choose censorship, you must analyze what either Kantian,
e. Summary (1 page)
a. ALL group members MUST involve or perform in the short-video.
b. Can be a drama (acting) (less than 3 minutes only)
Rule Utilitarian, Act utilitarian and Social Contract Theory analyze the censorship.
5. Submit together a CD contains your video with credits on your group members’ name.
PRESENTATION:
1. 10 minutes presentation will be allocated for each of the groups.