If you order your essay from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Ethics in the Computer Age. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Ethics in the Computer Age paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Ethics in the Computer Age, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Ethics in the Computer Age paper at affordable prices!
What Actions are Good and How Can we Know
Making decisions is a daily task for individuals. A decision that affects others or one's self and is deemed "worthy of praise or blame" is considered a moral decision (Edgar, 00, p. 15). When making a moral decision or taking action, one might wonder, "Are our actions good?" and "How can we know they are good, (the term "good" having the same meaning or connotation as moral, virtuous or right)? Philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Epicurus, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle, all have contributed to mankind, their view of what actions are good and by what guidelines one can know they are good.
John Stuart Mill, referred to as one of the fathers of Utilitarianism (the theory that consequences of an action determine its morality), claimed that
"The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness" (Barcalow, 1, p. 67).
Write my Essay on Ethics in the Computer Age
In other words, according to Utilitarianism, an action is deemed right or good if and only if it's results are the most beneficial in comparison to the results of the other choices available. Mill agrees, if an action produces more overall happiness in general considering all individuals possibly affected by the action, then the action is good. Noting the well being of others is key here. For example, say there were three individuals who were waiting for a heart transplant. One individual was a father of four children, CEO of a corporation and recently made a grandparent, the second being a young adult whose condition also involved cancer, and the last patient being a homeless individual with no family, or insurance. A heart became available that could be given to either of the patients. A Utilitarian choosing who would receive the heart would gather the information regarding which choice would have the most beneficial outcome. The homeless individual would probably continue to live a vagabond lifestyle that didn't necessarily benefit society, the young person with the cancer may die regardless of the transplant but the father, grandfather, and CEO would still be beneficial to society, his family, and grandchildren.
Another aspect of Mill's ethical theory involves his Harm Principle. In this principle, "All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people" (Barcalow, 1, p. 68). According to Mill, there are two fundamental freedoms. These freedoms are the liberty of thought and discussion and also the liberty to live according to one's own beliefs, values, desires, and preferences. That is, the liberty of "framing the plan of our life to suit our own character." Mill proposes that as long as one is not involved in actions that hurt or restrict another, particularly concerning his two fundamental freedoms, then those actions can be considered good. One argument against this aspect of Mill's theory is that it allows for too much freedom. What if a reputable individual made a statement claiming that alcohol does not impair one's judgment what so ever. This statement is false and dangerous and this action would not be considered good. Mill allows for the temporary restriction of expressions of thought that are threatening to public order and peace. He accepts and respects laws on libel and slander. Mill's response would be for that individual to rebut the claim publicly rather than restricting one's freedom of public expression, which in accordance to his moral code, is a good action.
Epicurus' main theories or teachings come from the understanding that "pleasure is the standard by which every good and every right actions is to be judged" (Magill, 10, p. 104). This is another example of Utilitarian ethical theory. In layman's terms, Epicurus professes if an action results in the feelings of pleasure in a person, it is considered good. The emphasis is that humans seek pleasure and avoid pain. Though there seems to be varying degrees of pleasure as far as how long it lasts or the intensity, Epicurus defines all pleasure as being the same and is that to which all human action strives for. The argument against Epicurus is obvious. Pleasures for one individual may not be the same for another. What if someone finds pleasure in riding extreme roller coasters at the local theme park? The individual with a fear of heights may not find the action of riding a roller coaster pleasurable in the least bit. Hence the action of riding one would not be good.
In contrast to Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy (Kantian) is based on duty as opposed to any moral law or right. This is also referred to as pluralism. Kant believed the only thing that can be considered unconditionally good is a good will. He states, "Nothing in the worldindeed nothing even beyond the worldcan possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will." (Magill, 10, p. 6). An example here would be, if there were three different individuals who found a wallet and two of them turned it in for reasons such as guilt or fear of being caught with it, then the action of turning the wallet in is not necessarily moral or good. The last individual turned in the wallet out of a feeling of duty or sense of concern for the individual who lost the wallet. Now that person's action is deemed moral or good even though all three persons took the same action. An action can also be considered good even if the end results have been affected by outside forces. The point here is the acceptance of the "good intent" as being synonymous with the "good action" even if the desired results are not achieved. This theory contrasts the Utilitarian theory, which generally analyzes results or consequences of an action to know if that action is good or not.
Delving deeper into Kant's moral philosophy one can know better what actions are good by understanding and implementing Kant's categorical imperatives (objective principles). The first one is "Act only according to that maxim (rule or principle) by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" meaning that everyone should abide by this if it were law. Or more simply, would one want everyone doing the same thing? Kant implies that there are rational constraints on what we can do. (Spinello, 00, p. 18) For example, if one is running late and one decides it is ok to run a stop sign, would one want everyone else to do the same? By doing so, the purpose of having stop signs would be null and void. In this example one would have to forgo the decision to run the stop sign as that action has been deemed not good. The other two main categorical imperatives include "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only" and "Act always as if you were legislating for a universal realm of ends" (Spinello, 00, p. 18). These actions, according to Kant will always produce actions that are good. The problem here is, one cannot always do anything. So it is only in theory that Kant's theoretical imperatives command "good actions." The extent to which maxims can be made is unending. It would be confusing to think one could universalize all maxims such as Be first to the grocery store. It is not logically possible but it does not mean that one should not be first to the grocery store if it were possible. If Kant expects one to "act in accordance with universal law and accept (or reject) any maxim according to its ability to be universalized, then knowing if one's actions are good or not should be "cut and dry." Obviously universalizing a maxim is not sufficient enough. On another note, it would also be difficult not to recognize the fact that one can choose to do the "right" thing for the "wrong" reason.
Aristotle and his "virtue ethics" focus on the good character of an individual. He believes that moral actions are a matter of habit and the only way to act virtuously is by constant practice of the good character. One also has to know the definition of a virtuous act. Aristotle's definition of a virtuous act is (1) know that what you are doing is virtuous; () choose the act; () do that act for its own sake; and (4) act according to a fixed, unchanging principle, or out of a fixed character (Edgar, 00, p. 71). When one "sees" what the right action is and one "chooses" that action, one can know that one's actions are good.
Aristotle also claims there is some end in particular for all of our actions, whether or not the action was done for the sake of our self (the ends) or for the sake of something else (the means). In these actions, reason allows us to choose the means best fitted to achieve the good end. There are certain actions and passions in which no means exists by its sheer badness. For example, spite and envy are two passions in which it would be impossible to be "right" in. And for an action such as adultery it would be absurd to consider any means merely on the fact that this action is innately bad. (Barcalow, 1, p. 8)
In conclusion, it can be seen that there are many differing ethical gauges that help determine what actions are good, moral, virtuous, or right. Though at times the differing theories are contradictory, there are valuable ethical principles put forth by Mill, Epicurus, Kant and Aristotle that are fairly conclusive when deciding if one's actions are considered good, and by what guidelines we can know they are good. Whether this is by contemplating the outcome of our actions, the pleasure received from our actions, or the overall benefit of others from our actions, these are all indicators of actions that are considered good.
References
Barcalaw, Emmett. (1). Open questions an introduction to philosophy.
California Wadsworth, Inc.
Edgar, Stacey. (00). Morality and machines. Massachusetts Jones and Bartlett
Publishers.
Jaspers, Karl. (1). The great philosophers vol III. Florida Harcourt Brace and
Company.
Magill, Frank. (10). Masterpieces of world philosophy. New York Harper-
Collins Publishers.
Spinello, Richard. (00). CyberEthics morality and law in cyberspace.
Massachusetts Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Please note that this sample paper on Ethics in the Computer Age is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Ethics in the Computer Age, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Ethics in the Computer Age will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
