Ethics Week 2 Discussion
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland, University College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
496
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by malinashippen
How to Do Well in Discussions
Make your initial post responding to the above questions by Saturday, and comment on at least four of your classmates' posts by Tuesday. Posting late may lose you points.
Respond to the specific questions posed in the discussion.
Be sure to base your initial post and responses on course materials, and use 7th ed. APA citations in every post.
Post your responses over three days and respond to four or more students to receive full credit for frequency of participation.
Write clearly and proofread; errors can lose you points.
Quality of posts, citations, frequency, and timeliness of posts all factor into your discussion grade. See the Participation Grading Rubric for details.
Instructions:
The FBI & Apple: Security vs. Privacy
Assignment
Apple and the FBI have two separate incidences where the FBI has asked Apple to break into an iPhone in a terrorist investigation where that phone may contain information that could prevent another terrorist attack. I have attached a case study that details the incident in 2015 and I have included a link to a New York Times article that details the incident earlier this year. For purposes of this discussion, you are Tim Cook and you must decide how to respond to the FBI's latest request. Falling back on his business studies, Mr. Cook applies utilitarianism to analyze what his decision should be.
Who are the stakeholders in this and how might they be affect by Apple's decision?
What decision benefits the greatest number of these stakeholders?
Do you agree with the decision that utilitarianism leads you to? Why or why not?
Does apply the test in Rights and Duties or Fairness and Justice lead you to a different answer?
Who are the stakeholders, and how might they be affected by Apple's decision?
R. Edward Freeman described stakeholders as any person or group which is vital to the success and survival of a corporation, also person or group who can affected or be affected by the corporation. Gilbert (2016)
It is clear the stakeholders affected or involved appear to be Apple, Apple's customers,
the FBI/Government, The Tech Industry, Privacy advocates, and the general public. This case in particular had far-reaching consequences that extended beyond the case. What decision benefits the greatest number of these stakeholders?
This case is very complex and involves weighing the public, the investigation, and industry. The ethical principles and long term consequences associated with privacy right and security risks are important. The utilitarian approach to being moral or making moral decisions is based on doing the best for the largest number involved in the situation (Gilbert, 2016). Considering utilitarianism can lead to outcomes that may meet
the generic definition of what is moral, but are also considered immoral by any sane person. I think it is necessary to approach this question from the perspective of rule utilitarianism. This approach considers following a specific rule based on if that rule provides the greatest good to the greatest number of stakeholders (Crash Course, 2016). This means, to me, that each rule must be evaluated to see if it meets the criteria of the rule utilitarian approach and provides big-picture common good, not merely common good based on a single act. Following the rule utilitarian approach, I feel that Apple providing access to investigators would benefit the greatest number of stakeholders. Doing a quick analysis, if apple refuses to provide access, it may protect its customers from future infringements on their privacy by the government and
criminals. On the other hand, the population at large, which is a much higher number than apple and its clients, may be at risk from terrorist attack if investigators are not provided with the data from the phones.
Do you agree with the decision that utilitarianism leads you to? Why or why not?
Overall, I do agree with the decision that rule utilitarianism led me to. By looking at the rule, I feel that following it provides more safety for more people. This does not mean that I do not highly value privacy, just that I feel more people benefit by being protected from being killed. I do feel the utilitarian approach does not adequately address the degree to which rights could be violated in the future as a result of compliance. A deeper
dive into that concept and the application of different "what-ifs" may produce a different outlook.
Does apply the test in Rights and Duties or Fairness and Justice lead you to a different answer?
The Rights and duties approach does not lead me to a different answer. The rights and duties approach
to ethics explains the ethical thing to do is the action that takes into account other's rights and the
corresponding duties others have based on those rights (Gilbert, 2016). This means that for every right,
someone has a duty to ensure that right. Gilbert also explained that the most basic human right is a right
to be alive. This right seems to overshadow the right to privacy in most cultures. Based on this approach,
the right to being protected from being killed would imply a duty on Apple to help prevent that possible
loss of life by providing access to the iPhone.
Using the fairness and justice approach, I did come to a different answer, but it was much more difficult.
The fairness and justice approach deals with acting morally by treating people in similar situations
similarly; this is in reference to both outcome and process and with consideration to proportionality
(Gilbert, 2016).
Furthermore, it was said that the fairness and justice approach encompasses several
different types of justice (Compensatory, Retributive, Procedural, Distributive). By this definition, it
seems like the argument to provide the iPhones, or not, could go either way. In this scenario, I feel
procedural justice may provide a compelling argument in favor of not allowing access to the phone, but I
feel retributive justice and compensatory justice may also provide a strong argument for providing
iPhone access to the FBI. Ultimately, I felt that imparting justice to already dead terrorists may not be
more important than protecting people's future privacy rights from criminals or potentially overreaching
government entities.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help