Legislation Governing Computer Use

Legislation Governing Computer Use

As a computer user, I approve of an ordering principle in the form of legislation being formulated and enforced to govern computer use. Use of computers may brush with people’s rights and privileges. As with conventional rights, they must be defended and upheld. Legislation on computer use will help defend and uphold people’s rights and privileges. As with any legislation, it is not enough that legislations be formulated; they must be enforced without prejudice.

Three Precepts on Computer Use

Three Precepts on Computer Use

“Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people”

From the definitions of ethics, not harming others is in parallel with the following: having moral actions, caring for the soul, pursuing the good life. Most divine laws object to harming others. Some circles regard humans as having the tendency not to harm others by virtue of the natural law. Most moral laws also condemn harming others. In ethical egoism, not harming others may be in parallel with the ego’s desires. It may also be ethically altruistic. Not harming others might also give the most good for the most number of people. Not harming others may also be a duty of everyone by virtue of the Kantian categorical imperatives. Not harming others may also be a mean between extremes with Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics.


“Thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work”

From the definitions of ethics, not interfering with other people’s work is in parallel with the following: having moral actions, caring for the soul, pursuing the good life. Most divine laws object to not interfering with other people’s work. Most moral laws also condemn interfering with other people’s work. In ethical egoism, not interfering with other people’s work may be in parallel with the ego’s desires. It may also be ethically altruistic. Not interfering with other people’s work might also give the most good for the most number of people. Not interfering with other people’s work may also be a duty of everyone by virtue of the Kantian categorical imperatives. Not interfering with other people’s work may also be a mean between extremes with Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics.


“Thou shalt not snoop around in other people’s files”

From the definitions of ethics, not snooping around in other people’s files is in parallel with the following: having moral actions, caring for the soul, pursuing the good life. Most divine laws object to snooping around in other people’s files. Most moral laws also condemn snooping around in other people’s files. In ethical egoism, not snooping around in other people’s files may be in parallel with the ego’s desires. It may also be ethically altruistic. Not snooping around in other people’s files might also give the most good for the most number of people. Not snooping around in other people’s files may also be a duty of everyone by virtue of the Kantian categorical imperatives. Not snooping around in other people’s files may also be a mean between extremes with Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics.

Two Ethical Issues

Two Ethical Issues

An ethical issue in computing is privacy. Privacy may apply to computer applications developers that wish that their programs not be reversed engineered. Privacy may also apply to computer users who wish that their identities be protected while using the computer. Since privacy in computing is just an extension of conventional privacy, and conventional privacy is an ethical issue, privacy in computing is also an ethical issue.

Another ethical issue is theft in computing. This issue comes in various forms, like theft of personal identity and theft using backdoors. Just as in conventional and computing privacy, theft with computers is just an extension of conventional theft.

With both issues, they become ethical because they affect people, some in adverse ways, others just in mild ways. Nevertheless, these issues are in the realm of ethics and must not be disregarded.

Case of Daan

Case of Daan

1. Which of the 10 commandments on computer use did Daan violate?

The most evident commandment that Daan violated was “Thou shalt not use other people’s resources without authorization.” Daan also violated another commandment, although less evident, was “Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.” Since Kael’s motherboard broke, Kael can’t use the computer entirely.


2. If you were Daan, will you tell Kael the truth or not? Explain.

Since Daan has violated the commandments, Daan must do some corrective action. Daan could make up for his fault by secretly replacing the damaged motherboard with a functioning one, without telling Kael. As some might say, “What you don’t know won’t hurt you.” This might solve the problem temporarily but Daan can’t be sure how long this secret will last. This might give Daan worries. But telling the truth to Kael could lead to having peace of mind for Daan and also for Kael in the sense that Kael is confident that Daan will tell the truth when something bad happens and not keep it a secret. Since I don’t want to have too many worries, I will tell Kael the truth if I were in Daan’s place.


3. If you were Kael and Daan told you the truth, what will you do?

If I were Kael, I must keep my cool and not just get angry with Daan. If I need the computer badly, I will require Daan to get the computer fixed as soon as possible. I should not be too lax with forgiving Daan because Daan might not learn the lesson from using other people’s resources without authorization.

Most Pervasive Moral Problem

Most Pervasive Moral Problem

In my opinion, the Problem of Freedom is very general enough that it encompasses the other Problems of Morality. If human beings are free and there is no morality then the other three are irrelevant. If this type of Problem of Morality encompasses the other three then this would be the most pervasive.

Moral Problems

Moral Problems

The pattern of having a problem between what an individual wants and what morals of the society dictates can be extracted from the problem statement if the following were established: a) the police father has chosen between arresting his son or not, and b) the morals of the society dictates what a police father should do in such a situation. The problem did not state what the police father wants to do between the options and what the morals of the society dictates. If there are conflicts between what the police father wants and the morals of the society dictate, then there is an illustration of a problem of moral obligation.

The problem statement is insufficient for us to categorize it as a problem of moral principle since the problem did not state a set of moral principles that the police father should choose from.

Should the police father make some moral choices, the problem could be categorized as that of the Scope of Morality if the choices have to be identified as moral or not.

The situation could illustrate a problem of freedom if the actions of the people involved in the problem are investigated in the light of infringing on the rights of other people or not.

Most Predominant Theory

Most Predominant Theory

Some concepts from all of the three finalist theories can be applicable to issues in computing. The norms of computing might have been formulated with the greatest happiness of the most number of people in mind. Or these computing norms may have been the universalized maxims and Imperative of Morality of rational people collectively. Kant's "good will" is parallel to modern laws concerning intent; Aristotle's inclusion of thoughts to people's actions (as opposed to actions only) is also in parallel with these.

The Nicomachean ethics can be seen as evident in computing because the ethics of computing are grounded on specific ends and in general, "the good life." Almost all of the Ten Commandments for Computer Ethics are grounded on pursuance of virtue and elimination of vices (stealing, destruction, etc.). The concepts of moderation or temperance are very applicable to computing related activities such as in the case of hacking. Hacking (ethical hacking) is a computing activity that incorporates various moral and intellectual virtues but going beyond the limits of ethical hacking that is cracking could be considered as example of Aristotelian excesses.

Most Appealing Finalist Theory

Most Appealing Finalist Theory

Although the three finalist theories are not very much appealing to me, I will choose Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics if I have to make a single choice. It seems that finalist theories of substantial value have been formulated since the very ancient times and the more recent theories are not too brilliant compared to the old theories. I did not choose Mill's and Kant's theories because I find them degrading of people.


Mill's Utilitarianism Brings People Down to the Level of Animals

Mill in this case has joined the league of somewhat annoying theorists like Darwin and Freud. Mill's use of happiness as argument, which he shares with Aristotle, is just fine but Mill's association of happiness with pleasure is meager as compared with Aristotle's definition of happiness. Also, Mill's criteria for happiness restricts it to the most number possible. The determination of the greatest good for the hedonistic utilitarianism is not too concrete.


Kant's Bases for the Categorical Imperatives are not Concrete

Kant did not specify the universalizable maxims, I think maybe it is because there are no maxims that are universally accepted. For every maxim that is a candidate for universality, there would be arguments to counter it. Since the bases for the duties that people should adhere to do not have sound foundations, they are not authoritative. I personally would not like to be bound to a duty imposed on me that has no sound basis. That would be blindly following orders. Much like degrading people as done by the league of annoying theorists. This is not the most appealing but rather the most appalling theory among the three.


Aristotle's Virtue as the Mean Between Excesses is not too Concrete

There are also some excesses that are inherently bad so that may be the reason Aristotle did not categorize all excesses as having a negative version, and the mean be determined between them. Aristotle's reliance on virtue as means to happiness is not also universal; also the use of rationality as opposed to irrationality, people sometimes does not accept all rationality as universal. Aristotle's ethics also stated not only keeping virtue in people's hearts but make them into actions. This could lead to people being burnt out which could be candidate for unhappiness.