Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Fatima Freeman Ethics in Technology June 4, 2012 My Code of Ethics 1 Principle I: Employers viewing potential or current employees Facebook

accounts. According to the social contract using a scale of -10 to 10 of an analysis of rights (Quinn 2011): Stake holders a. Employers b. Employees The rights of each stake holder goes as follows a. Employers have the absolute power of taking advantage of their employees privacy by seeking out information about how their employees feel about the organization that they work for or finding information of a candidate of employment at the organization. b. While the employee or the future employee has a limited power over the privacy of what they post on their Facebook page as well as no control over what the employee wishes what the employer sees.

2 The social contract implies that rights are been violated because the employer is using their right to hire and fire base on what the future employee or what the current employee has posted on their Facebook page regarding nothing to do with their work experience, but base on the things that they post on their Facebook page. Plus, the current employees and the future employees rights are been violated because Facebook does not tell the employer what type of worker they are just from viewing their Facebook page and this is a violation of privacy. Principle II: Our local authority using the NCIC to help make arrest on possible terrorist, car thieves and other criminal. According to the rule utilitarian in the long run will maximize the happiness of others (Quinn 2011): The local authority uses the NCIC Program as a way to identify possible terrorist, car thieves, track a stolen car, find missing persons and help avoid many other crimes to keep Americans safe. The benefits of local authorities using the NCIC Program does have many benefits where we as Americans will feel better about walking down the streets and feel a little safer at night when we go to sleep in the privacy of our homes. However, the cost of the NCIC Program does go a little further in depth to the fact that this is another form of violation of people privacy and that the local authority may be given far too much power of determining who should be arrested or who should not be arrested. Plus, there has been

3 some incidents where people have been mistakenly arrested based on what information that was collected by the local authority from the NCIC Program. Therefore, when these individuals have been arrested, but later released for the fact that it was proven that they are innocent. However, the cost of individuals getting falsely arrested is now on their permanent record and for individuals to get that removed is difficult because the arrest keep happening and each time this determine everything that they want to do in their lives because they have been falsely arrested. Therefore, local authority using the NCIC Program to make arrest is unethical. Principle III: The misuse of Government equipment in the film This Means War (2012). According the act utilitarian the individuals do not consider the consequences of using Government equipment for the wrong reasons on a scale of -10 to 10: Devise on a scale of -10 to 10 a. FDR -5 b. Tuck 3 c. Lauren -8 d. The government -10 e. Collins -10 f. Total of all -30 From applying a scale and doing the math the outcome for all of the stakeholders makes this act unethical because instead of using the Government equipment that the

4 Government provides for the organization that Tuck and FDR work for to track terrorist they use the equipment to track a girl, named Lauren, that they both asked out to determine whether which one is better for her. However, Lauren is encouraged to continue on to date both Tuck and FDR for the sake to get back in the grove of dating again after a bad break up from her best friend. Therefore, this is what causes the misuse of the Government equipment by Tuck and FDR when they both find out that they are dating the same girl. Furthermore, Lauren is unaware that Tuck and FDR work together as well as the fact that they are spies that work together. However, in the film they work at spying on Lauren to see what she likes and what she does not like in order to win her over by using Government equipment. Also, Collins been their boss never raises her suspension of what Tuck and FDR are using the equipment for nor does the Government questions the usage of the equipment that they have provided to the organization that Tuck and FDR work for. In other words based on the information that is provided this act on Tuck and FDR part is unethical because of the misuse of the Government equipment that can be used to track terrorist and in the film the lack of tracking the usage of the equipment is never brought up. Principle IV: Tracking human beings as a means of providing better medical care in the film Never Let Me Go (2010). According to Kants first formulation imperative;

5 In the film Never Let Me Go the medical personnel use technology to rack human beings to create a better healthcare system. The characters Kathy, Ruth and Tommy are been tracked throughout their lives to ensure that they do not escape from the school Hailsham and to ensure that when they come of age that they must donate their organs in order to help mankind defeat diseases as well as deformities. However, in the Never Let Me Go this method of a better healthcare solution for human beings is self-destructive because even though the characters Kathy, Ruth and Tommy are clones do not mean that they do not have a choice at donating their organs so that human beings can avoid diseases as well as deformities. Plus, in the film it is never brought up for a discussion of who gets the organs or if this health care plan is even helping mankind. Therefore, according to Kants first formulation this is an unethical act and in Kants second formulation this act also indicates that these clones are been used. Principle V: Using Adobe Photoshop to edit photos for magazines (2012): According to the Kants Formulation; Using Adobe Photoshop to edit the origin of a photo in order for magazines to sell is very deceitful because the photo is now a lie and there is no truth to the photo. Plus, the photo is also advertising a superficial image to the minds of the younger person and this will make the younger person feel imperfect.

6 Therefore, allowing for photos to enter a magazine after they have been edited using Adobe Photoshop can create a thought in the mind of the younger reader that they are imperfect and that younger reader should not always see the perfection of the photo because that photo is not the origins. This act is self-defeating because this does allow for the magazine to sale and for the choice of editing a photo can be made, but the photo creates a false image. Therefore, this can cause for the younger reader to feel that they are not perfect and that can causing many conflictions with in the younger reader. Plus, those conflicting thoughts that the young reader is having can sometimes be expensive to heal and irreversible. However, this act is using the idea of how perfection is thought to be in a human being mind and that would be using people to determine how a photo should be edited in order to make a cove of a magazine perfect so that more copies can be brought. Therefore, this act is considered to be unethical.

Adobe Photoshop 2012 www.adobe.com Facebook 2012 www.facebook.com Never Let Me Go 2010 www.foxsearchlight.com; http://www.foxsearchlight.com/neverletmego/ Quin, Michael J 2009 Ethics in Technology 3rd Edition

This Means War 2012