Assignment3

1.Discuss how adherents of ethical egoism and altruism would

analyze the following situations.


Case 1: Roger plans to buy a licensed software in the US using royalties from the sale of his book on computer ethics and donate the software to his Alma Mater.


The scenario speaks more of ethical altruism. Roger, using his own personal royalties from all his efforts, his time, his knowledge and his money to publish a book, make a sale and buy
something for his Alma Mater, shows his selflessness. He is a picture of a man who sacrifices his personal interests and gains in exchange for the benefit of others. He is also someone who fulfills his unwritten obligation to his Alma Mater by giving back something to it.Though these unwritten obligations are not forcibly and deeply imposed, still Roger knows that as someone who had been taught and helped by his Alma Mater he should be giving back something to it and by doing that, he probably knows that he is not only doing his Alma Mater a favor but also everyone who had been a part, who are a part and who will be a part of his Alma Mater.



Case 2: Baba debugged a secret code of the NBI that allowed her to access all computer systems of the agency.She plans to sabotage the whole system as a form of revenge for what she considers to be the NBI's violation of her human rights.



Clearly, the situation is vividly picturing an example of ethical egoism or more specifically a rational egoism.Debugging a system of such an important agency of the government requires honesty and a sense of obligation. Baba, having full access to the NBI's systems and also having a plan to sabotage it, can see only the advantages of what her plans can do to her and is not considering the people who could be affected by it. What she could have been thinking is that it is reasonable for her to do such thing since the NBI is the first one who had done something she considered wrong to her. But, what if she really is truly and legally wrong? Her judgment, her means and her reasons are all just based on her own beliefs and perception of things and the benefits of her plan are all centered on herself and not to others.



Case 3: Marjo wants to create a computer virus that would affect
only laptop operations.



This is one situation that can hardly be distinguished as more inclined on ethical egoism or ethical altruism because of so much circumstances that could be surrounding this. However, if it is read and analyzed deeper, I would say that this is more of ethical egoism. The sentence says that "Marjo wants...".Wants signifies our own desire, in this case Marjo's desire. He is the one who wants to do this, we don't know for what reason or for whom, but the point is, it is he himself who decided to do such thing. It reflects self-interest and that what egoism is all about.



2. Which among the finalist theories (John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant' Categorical Imperative & Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics) appeals to you most?



As a theory that commands an action simply because it is good under any situation, I would say that Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative Theory is the one that appeals to me most. Categorical Imperative for me implies universal goodness. No matter what race you are, who you are and where you are, it doesn't matter as long as what you do is good and right in whatever angle you may look at it and for whatever reason you have for doing it. Take for example "love". Love is in itself good and it conforms to whatever reason. Though not everyone act in accordance to it, still it ought to be applied by everyone. It should be a universal law and it may already be, only unwritten.


3. Which among the theories seems to predominate in the world of computing as you know it?


The world of computing is offering so much good things to the physical world. People behind all the conveniences we are enjoying right now-programmers, developers, designers, analysts etc.- all got some driving force that enabled them to invent new gadgets and principles. I believe that whatever it is that motivates them, it all goes back to their own personal interests. It may be that they want fame or money, could be for others or for themselves, whatever reason these people have for doing certain things, in the long-run it is their self-interests that they satisfy. With that I conclude that the theory of Ethical Egoism is the theory that predominates the world of computing.

Assignment2

** One writer defines privacy as "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others"


(A) Is this a good definition of privacy? Why or why not?


Privacy for me is not "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others" but rather "freedom from inappropriate intrusions of others". The first definition, which is that privacy ifs freedom from inappropriate judgment, appeals lesser substance for people or others can inappropriately judge us without crossing the line where our privacy starts. All judgments are inappropriate if not proven to be true. All of us are suspects and victims of these inappropriate judgments. Merely by looking, we inappropriately judge others. merely by looking at us, we are inappropriately judged by others. Most often, after prejudging someone we don't care anymore how true our judgments are that we dare not to spend time to prove the truthfulness of what we think. However, there are those who care enough to take evasive, immediate sometimes destructive, inappropriate and unreasonable actions to prove themselves that what judgment they have for someone is true. Then, inappropriate intrusions follow, violating others' right of privacy. Inappropriate judgments therefore for me, are causes of inappropriate intrusions that could destruct and disturb your privacy and not a direct cause of it. This realization therefore leads me to the conclusion that the definition of privacy as freedom from inappropriate judgment of others is not that good of a definition of privacy.

(B) Suppose we use this definition, should people have a positive right (claim right) for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?

Should people have the negative right (liberty) for this kind of privacy? Why or why not?


Supposedly using the definition of privacy as "freedom from inappropriate judgment of others", I can say that people should have the negative right (liberty) for this kind of privacy but should not have the positive right (claim right). This is because if people would have the positive right on this privacy, with that definition, everybody could claim that they should not be judged in anyway and they could also claim that they are inappropriately judged by others and that their privacy is disturbed. Basing on those claims of people, a more serious problem will arise where in anybody could point anybody accusing him or her of inappropriate judgment . On the other hand if negative right (liberty) would be given to the people, inappropriate judgment will be controlled and those inappropriate judgments without enough grounds and reason will have to be considered as fallacy. Another thing is that nobody got the authority to impose to someone that he/she should not be judged inappropriately. These would give the people the chance to exercise their right to choose what they think is good for them: to inappropriately judge others or not.