Philosophy

Kants deontological theory argues that the action is ethical and morally acceptable if individuals are motivated and are driven by goodwill. Regardless of the consequences, the action that is aimed to promote goodwill will always be ethical and moral. Whether firing H-1 workers before laying off and firing other full-time American workers is ethical depends on the motivation, which drives such policies. If the need for the U.S. to help American-born employees to preserve their employment is the main policy motivation, then laying off H-1 workers is morally justified. However, if goodwill of the firm is the central motivating factor, laying off and firing H-1 workers is unethical. The fact is in that not all H-1 workers are inefficient and inactive and not all American-born employees are efficient enough to keep their positions. In case employers are driven by the desire of fairness, justice, and equality in employment, firing H-1 workers simply because of their H-1 status is unacceptable and goes against the basic principles of deontology.
    Question  7
    Whistleblowing is usually defined as
the voluntary release of non-public information, as a moral protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal andor immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest (Rufus).
Given that utilitarianism is about promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people, a person who takes a decision in favor of becoming an anonymous whistleblower should be confident that such actions will at least work for the benefit of the whole organization. This, however, is possible only in case (a) a whistleblower possesses sufficient and reliable evidence (preferably documented) to convince managers that the situation is serious and requires immediate resolution and (b) a whistleblower has sufficient evidence and confidence to believe that his (her) actions will work for the benefit of the whole organization. Thus, through the prism of utilitarianism, only documented evidence and a solid reason to be confident that whistleblowing will not do any harm to the organization can make whistleblowing morally justified.
    Question  8
    When it comes to Internet security, companies often face a dilemma. They may choose to reveal and openly discuss the flaws in their computer systems, in order to warn employees about possible failures. They may also keep to the principles of silence and non-transparency in everything with regard to exploiting computer systems in the workplace. The natural question is in whether it is more ethical to promote transparency in everything that concerns security and computer systems or whether it is better to keep silence to prevent potential hacking attacks. Everything depends on what ethical principles the company wants to pursue. If transparency and openness is the ultimate ethical and organizational goal, then discussing security issues openly may be reasonable and even necessary. However, and to be objective and realistic, such transparency and openness are not always ethically justified.
    Very often in their actions, professional hackers vote for all information to be accessible and free  the vision which is too idealistic and romantic to be true (Tavani 176). Given the many purposes of the information and the ways in which it can be used, it would be more acceptable not to discuss various security flaws in public, and there are several reasons for that. First, not to reveal such information to the public means to hold the grip of control over this information and to be able to use it. Second, not to reveal this information to the public also means to reduce the probability that this information will be modified, changed, and used for illegal purposes. That means that the principle of obscurity for the sake of security is in accordance with both Kantian ethics and utilitarianism it promotes goodwill and creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people in an organization. However, to make sure that this decision does not have any ethical flaws, the information about security breaches and potential weaknesses should be disclosed to a limited number of organizational professionals, who deal with computer systems directly and are responsible for the information security in the organization. Tavani is correct keep private any information that should be private and keep free any information that should be free (177). In the discussed case, there is no ethical need for revealing the information about potential security flaws to employees and external parties, who may later use this information to achieve their not always legal objectives.
    Question  9
    When the whole world is actively fighting to combat hackers and to protect vulnerable and private information from unauthorized intrusions, a small computer lab in California works to teach college students the basic skills of hacking Grant Joy runs a program that surreptitiously records every stroke on a PC, including user names, passwords, and credit-card numbers (Kushner). The action, which is so unusual and challenging in its boldness, nevertheless has a simple explanation the lab is expected to teach students how to identify and correct potential security flaws. Unfortunately, a whole set of ethical controversies stand behind this explanation, and in no way can they justify the decision to create a hacking lab in a college. To a large extent, this is a matter of hacking being ethical or unethical. And that hackers probably serve the most sophisticated societal needs is not a good justification for security break-ins.
    Certainly, if deontological ethics confirms goodwill as the major driver of ethical behaviors, then the discussed computer lab is nothing else but an ethical desire to protect the world from computer threats and to heal the main computer vulnerabilities. But in the context of deontology, and taking the discussed computer lab as an analogy, an explosion in the center of an overcrowded mall would be also justified as a matter of testing the vulnerabilities of the malls emergency systems (Tavani 177). From the viewpoint of consequentialism (utilitarianism), teaching hacking in colleges is unethical simply because those who teach hacking cannot fully evaluate the consequences of such knowledge. Can one guarantee that those working in class will not use their knowledge against society As a result, neither deontological nor utilitarian perspectives can justify the creation of a hacking lab in any college.