In Kantianism theories, 1st formation of Kantianism says that “Act only from moral rules that you can at

the same time will to be universal moral laws”[1]. Imagine that when you forget the homework and
you’re in the last day of “deadline”. You ask your classmate his homework to consult but actually you
take all his work to submit. So you’re stealing and lying. You admit that stealing and lying are universable
to everyone. And then if students get homework, all they should do is asking anyone else’s work to
consult and submit that for themselves. Everyone do it repeatedly. It never comes to end and no one
gets homework done completely. And 2 nd formation: “Act so that you always treat others as an end
never as a means to an end” [2], you use another’s homework to submit your homework, everyone does
that the same and again it won’t end. According to Kantianism, you can’t lie though you might lie to get
a better result like you met an injury deer escaping hunters, then you take it to your house. They see
you, ask where it is and you lie it is outside. Because in some cases, that deer pretends to go outside
your house if it thinks your house is not safe at all. So the hunters meet and shoot it. This dispute in
Kantianism makes start-up Fiin is wrong. The idea, design, and content in website https://Fiin.vn is the
same as https://Vaymuon.vn of NextTech. Long, used to be in technology team as a leader, retired in
20/04/2018[3] must be reponsible for that situation and if Fiin doesn’t send any apologizable
documentary to NextTech, NextTech can sue.

With Utilitarianism theories, the cost NextTech hired the technology team leader Long would be high
and so were the salaries of the technology team. They pay so much money to get their work, the
website. The start-up Fiin don’t have to pay Long because Long might be chairman, some investigations
say that Fiin has the main company’s address is same as address of Nga’s house, as a wife of Long. And if
NextTech can’t get any high revenues than previous months after Long retired. It’s absolutely affected
badly to NextTech. In principle of Utility of Utilitarianism: “An action is right (or wrong) to the extent
that it increases total happiness of the affected parties” [4] , this dispute doesn’t gain all happiness from
both. Besides, NextTech will be more angrier after they hears some information about of Long why he
leaves them. Also, the idea of website https://Fiin.vn, same as https://Vaymuon.vn is actually from
NextTech because Long worked for NextTech during the time he and his team did it, basically, it’s a work
of NextTech if Long and his team signed the contract of working that they worked in NextTech so
NextTech can have stuffs like website, applications as their own. In Act Utilitarianism, is a utilitarian
theory of ethics which states that a person's act is morally right if and only if it produces the best
possible results in that specific situation [5]. With this situation, Fiin is totally wrong and so is Long because
they don’t make the best result for NextTech and them. They make NextTech argues them. For Rule
Utilitarianism, the start-up is against it because they can’t reuse their ideas for their websites and that
action can’t produce the greatest good.

And with the Social Contract theory, “Morality consists in the set of rules, governing are to treat one
another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others
follow those rules as well”[6]. The law of government follows with this theory. And the law on intellectual
property is in the law of government. The start-up Fiin use their old work as NextTech’s work for
purpose without asking NextTech’s permission, buying their ideas, products is wrong with that law if
NextTech has signed that https://Vaymuon.vn is their own intellectual property. NextTech can totally
sue as soon as they have enough the evidences.
So, Finn is motally wrong with Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract theories. Fiin should create a
new website with other ideas, write a apology documentary. They must accept the fine of the sue.