The outcome of any action performed cannot be predetermined with a high degree of surety thus making it impossible to know whether it was a right decision or not.  Firing H-1 workers first is meant to protect American workers and to some extent such policy would make the American workers blissful.  With regards to Kant’s ethical theory, happiness and the consequences of an action do not form the basis of morality (Lugo 72), thus making the policy unacceptable.  This implies that actions that make the majority happy and contented are not always morally justified.  An action might be morally right but this does not imply it is morally good as the two are not the same.  Firing H-1 workers prior to the American ones can be considered morally right due to the economic recession being experienced in the country and the fact that American residents have more privileges than their counterparts.  The only thing that is termed as good by Kant’s theory is the act of good will and this requires that the motivation of an action performed by  an individual be the respect for the moral law (Lugo 74).   The policy is not in line with the deontological principle thereby depriving it the morally good reputation. 

Moreover, H-1 workers and American workers are human beings thus rational.  Kant’s moral philosophy dictates that all humans should be treated with equal dignity in all rational actions undertaken (Wood 125).  The policy does not entail H-1 workers being treated with equal dignity as they deserve the same respect as their counterpart.  It involves manipulating the contract agreed upon regarding matters of H-1 workers.  Regardless of the fact that one can enter into an agreement or contract in order to receive services or goods, it is improper to deceive or manipulate another person.  Kant’s theory does not support manipulation or deception for personal or organizational goals thus making the policy unethical.

The utilitarian theory entails bringing happiness to the majority and this makes the statement concerning anonymous whistle-blowing unacceptable.  For an action to be considered morally right, the upshot should involve generation of the highest utility with regards to all available actions (Brandt 196).   Utility encompasses happiness and elimination of pain thus providing an implication that actions associated with more pleasure in the long run are deemed morally right.  The consequence of whistle blowing involves hurting the accused only through imprisonment or hefty fines, and bringing much pleasure to the society at large.  By reporting an offense thereby punishing the accused, the likelihood of such of offenses occurring will reduce in the long run.  

By using whistle-blowing to report an unlawful activity does not violate the rights of the accused in any way with respect to the utilitarianism.  The theory of utilitarianism focuses primarily on the outcome of performing an action in present time and in future thus provides more privileges to the society and not the actors (Brandt 111).  The society is more important than an individual thus implying that the society or organization has more rights than an individual.  As result of this theory degrading an individual, anonymous whistle blowing which aims at enhancing the safety of an organization or society does not infringe on the rights of the accused.

In an organization, internet security plays a crucial role in its business activities and operations.  The importance of internet security makes it a necessity for an organization to put aside ample resources aimed at ensuring provision of high maintenance standards.  Despite transparency alerting possible victims on matters concerning computer security of a particular organization, it makes the company more susceptible to rogues thereby posing risk of causing more harm.  On the other hand, security by obscurity which entails deception and suppression of information on computer system security does bring harm to any person.  Taking the stand of utilitarianism, an action that is innocuous thus resulting in great pleasure being experienced by a great multitude is considered morally justified and not the reverse action (Brandt 196).  Security by obscurity is therefore morally justified since it results in more people being contented and joyful.  Transparency on the other hand results in organization incurring loses through rogues and hefty investment of funds in purchasing and maintaining superior quality computer systems, and in addition to that causes disgruntlement in customers.      

The theory of utilitarianism supports use of deception aimed at bringing pleasure to a great multitude or an organization (Brandt 198).  In some cases, knowing the truth brings about much pain while the contradictory which entails lying brings and maintains happiness.  In general, security by obscurity involves use of deception to bring happiness and contentment since the truth would cause much pain to the entities involved.  Hence, security by obscurity is the most morally justified of the two alternatives of solving the internet security incidence.

The basis of  morality with respect to the theory of utilitarianism is associated with the effect of the action performed by an organization or individual.  Since an action involving much pain and suffering to a multitude is termed immoral, offering the college course takes an analogous platform.  The outcome of offering the course is clearly observed from views of antivirus companies, which entails generation of negative heat.  Organizations are not happy with the course since it might result in low productivity thus affecting their businesses adversely.  A morally justified action is supposed to bring happiness and not pain however offering the course is bringing much pain thus making it immoral.

Furthermore, the offering course does not guarantee that students will utilize the skills acquired for the good of the society.  The course is a risk whose outcome is unpredictable since the teacher has no control over the students on completion of the course.  Following completion of the course, the students  have free will thus can use their skills to their satisfaction.  The course equips the students with skills and knowledge that pose a great risk to antivirus organizations.  In addition to antivirus companies, other organizations are also placed at a high risk of being invaded by hackers or unauthorized intruders.  Invasion by hackers would result in many damages being experienced by organizations, and an excessive investment by antivirus companies in enhancing their product aimed at preventing them from becoming ineffective.   Offering the course to students therefore causes more harm than good thus not morally justified.   

Order now

Related essays