According to Kant’s ethical theory happiness does not constitute the foundation of morality neither does the consequences of ones actions.  Since an individual cannot predict the outcome of his actions, knowing whether the action was right or wrong is not possible.  From such perspective, the consequences of firing first H-1 workers before American workers are not clear thus providing an implication that Kant’s ethical theory is against such actions or policy.   Such policy might be morally right since it aims at safeguarding job security for American employees in tough economic times, but is not morally good.  In accordance with Kant’s ethical theory, the only thing that is considered good is the act of good will, which is acquired by an individual when ones actions are motivated by respect for the moral law (Louden 16).   The policy will result in organizations acting morally right but a morally right action is not synonymous with a morally good action. 

Furthermore, Kant’s ethical theory posits that humans are rational beings thus should be treated as an end rather than means (Louden 15).  H-1 workers are rational being thus needs to be treated with the same respect one deserves.  Despite that one can enter into an agreement with another person to be provided with services, it is unacceptable to manipulate or even deceive them.  The policy entails manipulating H-1 workers working in the country thus not supported by the ethical theory laid down by Kant. 

By taking into consideration the utilitarian theory, the statement on anonymous whistle-blowers is not justified.  In accordance with this theory, an action is considered morally right if generates the highest utility relative to any other available action (Mill 15).   Utility usually involves pleasure or happiness and the absence of pain thus an action that leads to more pleasure and pain absence in the long run is considered morally right.  Despite whistle blowing harming the accused through heavy punishment such as imprisonment or fines, it provides an opportunity to reduce the number of criminal activities occurring in an organization or the society.   The benefit associated with reporting wrongdoings when they occur is that such actions will hopefully come to an end.  

Utilitarian theory puts more weight on the outcome of the action in the long run thus places no privileges on the pleasure of the players (Mill 18).  The theory values more the society and the future thus leading to a reduction in the respect afforded to an individual.  With respect to the benefits provided to the society by anonymous whistle-blowing, the accused has minimum to no right on basis of utilitarian theory.  Therefore, reporting the offense through whistle-blowing does not violate the rights of the accused to face their accusers.        

Internet security within an organization constitutes an integral part of its operations and activities, thus requires investment of adequate resources as way of providing assurance.  Security by obscurity provides a false assurance that all is well within an organization’s computer system.  Transparency on the other hand provides solid facts on whether a company has adequate internet security or not.  Of the two, transparency is the most morally justified, not security by obscurity.   In security by obscurity, people are deceived that the computer security in a particular organization is strong and impregnable and yet it is not.  In accordance with Kant’s ethical theory, use of deception or manipulation for personal gain is immoral.  Through security by obscurity, it is the company that stands to gain and not the society as will save much money which would have been used to upgrade its security system.

Moreover, Kant’s theory dictates that one should ‘act according to the maxim’ that a civilized and benign person would wish for it to become universal law (Smart & Williams 9).  To a benign person, transparency is the way to go since it entails openness and honesty unlike security by obscurity which involves deception.  Deceptions as a universal law will result in a disorderly society thus tarnish its image while openness or transparency will bring social order and also challenge companies to improve and maintain their security systems adequately.         

Considering the principles of utilitarianism, morality is based on the outcome of the action performed by an individual.  Therefore, an action that brings about much happiness rather than pain to a large number of people is considered morally justified while the opposite action is immoral (Mill 18).  The college course generates much pain and not happiness thus is immoral.  Offering the course does not guarantee that the students will use their skills for good since it provides them with an opportunity of becoming dangerous and professional hackers hence a vice in the society.  

In addition, the course puts antivirus companies at risk of losing business as their products might become futile.  Creation of superior malicious programs will lead to most antivirus programs becoming ineffective and, as result, most businesses and individuals will fall prey to hacking thereby incurring much damage.  Hackers invest their skills in penetrating or finding ways of breaking into systems of organizations and in the course of their operations they destroy computer files, access confidential information and many other activities which are detrimental to organizations.  Furthermore, superior malicious programs will compel organizations to invest additional financial resources antivirus programs in order to address them.   Such actions are abominable to organizations, particularly small ones which are normally characterized by inadequate funds, since their systems will be vulnerable.  Therefore, taking into consideration this concept, offering a course on methods of creating computer viruses and ways of penetrating high quality antivirus programs is not morally justified.

Order now

Related essays