Analysis of Hacking into Harvard - Case Study Example

Hacking into Harvard Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Question 3 Question 2 4 Question 3 5 Question 4 6 References 8 Question a. Harvards stance overlooked the possibility that the hacker might have been a spouse or a parent. -This statement is a normative, as this statement condemns the action of Harvard University for overlooking the possibility that the hacker might have been a spouse or a parent but not the applicant himself. It indicates that the candidate himself might not be the one who accessed the account, it can also be his parent or spouse who had access to the candidate’s password and identification number and their action can be justifiable. This statement provides a different prescriptive under which the action may have been taken place. b. ‘We should send a message to society as a whole that we are attempting to produce people that when they go out into the world, they will behave ethically.’ -This statement is descriptive because it highlights an ethical behaviour, which is ideally accepted in society. This statement makes a prediction regarding the factual consequences of their action, i.e. by cancelling the application of those candidates who have hacked the account, they are being punished for their unethical behaviour. This statement also generates an emotional reaction by highlighting the importance of ethics and its future positive consequences. c. ‘This behaviour is unethical at best.- This statement can be considered as a descriptive statement as well as a normative. The adjective ‘unethical’ describes the behaviour to be bad and against the moral judgement of an individual. Moreover, the following phrase ‘at best’ claims the value of behaviour. The statement makes a factual claim about the behaviour being unethical. Question 2 The morality of the curious applicants assessed from the following point of view: a. Egoism: Egoism preaches that individuals are not required to act in the interest of others but should if that is the best way to promote our self-interest. The ethical theory of egoism states that self-interest is only the thing that ever motivates individuals. However, many critics have also stated that ethical egoism is not a moral principle and it also ignores blatant wrongs. It has misunderstood the nature and point of morality. The actions of the curious applicants’ were only to fulfil their self-interest, there was egoism in their activities and hence the actions were not moral (Shaw, 2007). b. Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is concerned with the total happiness produced but not with how the happiness is distributed. Utilitarianism may even sacrifice the happiness of some in order to achieve more amount of happiness. Many critics have considered utilitarianism as unjust. The morality of the curious candidates can be referred as utilitarianism because they were only concerned about the happiness but not the medium through which they are acquiring it (Shaw, 2007). c. Deontology (Kants ethics): Kant’s ethics are the excellent examples of non-consequent approach to ethics. Kant points out that the moral principles are independent of consequences of actions but are dependent on pre-established rules. To act morally in the right way the person must act out of goodwill, his duty and respect for the law (Mcnaughton & Rawling, 2007). The curious candidates should have considered their duty and respect towards law. Through goodwill they could have acted morally and stopped themselves from such negative actions. According to law, hacking and acquiring information without permission is a crime, which was committed by the applicants. d. Rosss Pluralism: Moral pluralism states that the questions of moral significance can be answered in many ways and it recognises multiple aspects that guides the moral judgment and action. Pluralism argues that there are several sources of morality such as our past action, justice, families and many more. To act in the right direction, balancing the obligations of different sources of morality is an essential requirement. Ross’s pluralism sets the prima facia duties, which are ‘to act at first’, ‘to consider obligations’ and ‘to act accordingly’. The prima facie duty of the applicants was to distinguish between right and wrong, to respect the law, which they failed by hacking into the file without judging their actions. Question 3 The MBA applicants to take an unauthorised peek at their application files are morally unethical. The actions of the candidates show the lack of an intuitive moral sense of differentiating between the right and the wrong. The actions of the candidates lead to ‘breach of trust’, which is irrational and by doing so they have failed to fulfil the norms of proper conduct in the society. Moral ethics do not consider such actions permissible because unauthorised access into the files and stealing information is a crime and not justifiable. Their actions only consider serving their self-interest. However, with their actions they have forgotten to respect the law. Their selfish actions to achieve the self-interest have not only endangered their own carrier but also have earned bad reputation of being unethical. The actions of the curious applicants have also shown the impatience of candidates regarding the announcement of their results. They did not have the patience to wait for their results to be announced and hence they indulged into the unethical act of hacking (Shaw, 2007). Contextually, moral ethics defines the laws, regulations and duties of each individual in the society. Everyone is free to live and act accordingly in the society as long as those actions do not infringe and disturb the rights of others. The candidates have failed to honour the principles of morality. Their actions have not only affected themselves but also people around them. They have disappointed their families, who had a lot of trust in them and left them to face criticism from the society for their actions. By blindly following the instructions posted by an unidentified hacker, the action have indicated the lack of integrity, strong moral compass and sound judgment within the applicants along with unethical behaviour, contrary to the behaviour of the leaders (Shaw, 2007). Question 4 Ethical decision making can resolve the ethical dilemma when moral values or ethical principles conflict with each other. Ethical decision making will help in taking the right course of action and to analyse whether the action are right or wrong. Formation of a sound ethical decision needs gathering of facts, identifying the consequences as well as the obligations considering high level of integrity and sound judgement. Obligations should be considered in terms of principles and rights involved in ethical decision making. In this case the curious applicants have failed in making the context of ethical decision. They should have gathered more facts about the information posted by the anonymous hacker before following it blindly. They should have judged the information on both legal grounds and sound ethics and morality. They should have questioned the level of legality on using the information in hacking into the confidential declarations of results. The applicants also should have identified the consequences of their actions and various obligations attached with it. Few of such obligations are as moral, legal and also religious. They should have used high level of integrity and sound judgements to decide their action i.e. whether to access the file using the information posted by the anonymous hacker or to refrain the same. They should have consider certain questions before acting in such a manner. Whether the action will do any harm than more good, how comfortable and confident they are with the decision and what is at stake. If all these context of ethical decision making were considered by the curious applicants they could have kept themselves from committing such unethical mistakes (Shaw, 2007). References Shaw, W., 2007. Business Ethics. Cengage Learning. Mcnaughton, D. A., & Rawling, J. P., 2007. Principles of Health Care Ethics, Second Edition .Deontology. John Wiley & Sons. Read More