The issue at hand was supposed to be about our civil liberties being violated, but Snowden inadvertently put the spotlight on himself by breaking the law as well. Thus, bringing up our topic of him being a hero or a traitor rather than just the government breaking civil laws. While the topic of Snowden is a valid issue, it is not exactly the one that should be receiving the most attention by the media. Instead of focusing on who did what, we should be focusing on the public’s rights and safety. The argument against Snowden also brings up the false dilemma fallacy.
After an accident in which distracted driving was the harbinger, the people involved typically pay medical bills, legal fees if there is a court case, and increased insurance rates. Furthermore, one out of every five accidents that occur are due to distracted driving, and over 40 billion dollars are spent on car accidents each year. With those numbers in mind, the people in the United States spend on average over 8 billion dollars annually on accidents caused by distracted driving (No Author Listed, 2017). In addition, accidents not only cause monetary problems but emotional distress to any individual involved. For example, in a study recently conducted in Europe, 36% of people admitted into intensive care for an injury due to an accident also exhibited symptoms of anxiety disorders (Papadakaki, 2017).
In the article, Duska uses many exemplifications to prove his audience there are many ways that lead to unethical decisions in business. Duska states blindly obey authority is one of the reasons that leads to a good person does bad thing. He uses a real life example that we heard about bank Wells Fargo a few years ago to illustrate how good people turn out do bad things because of docility. Tellers at Wells Fargo are not really bad people but they obey their boss order to open accounts for clients without caring about their benefits and problems. In this case, they make the unethical decision in business (p.27).
He had stolen files that were not his, and most of all, he did it without the owner’s consent. Even though he was unaware of his actions being considered as stealing, what he did was still morally wrong. On the other side, the supporters of Aaron used the utilitarian theory. They did not care much as to what they were violating or what can be or will be violated, because they believe that their purpose and output is justifiable. In my opinion, I believe that the best ethical theory to be applied in this kind of situation is the social contract theory, simply because it stops conflict.
They know no other way than to submit to the collective identity and will. Manipulability is a very dangerous character trait because without having an opinion for oneself and being able to stand up for what is right and just, as displayed in Lord of the Flies, Samneric became pawns for those in charge. People that are manipulable and malleable are volatile to society. These types of people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviours and follow trends which, in this novel, proved to cause instability. While manipulability was very dangerous, it demonstrated that there was no immediate danger to the
Ethical dilemmas are made in diverse shapes and structures. Inside of the Mercury Energy and Folole Muliaga case, the ethical decision making from the Mercury Energy spokesperson instigated unwelcomed consequences for the company and for the Muliaga family. Surveying the outcomes encompassing the contractor turning off Mrs. Muliaga power was quite thought provoking, giving her condition. Yet, it 's common for an individual to discover him or herself conferring an unexpected untrustworthy act. For instance, the contractor for Mercury Energy was enacting the policy and procedures set forth by his company.
Beam was aware of the fraud when it first began; however, he went along with it in order to avoid being on Scrushy’s bad side as Scrushy was known to get angry and threaten people. Beam knew what he was doing was wrong and his conscious started weighing so heavily upon him and could no longer go along with the charade that he decided to leave the company. Others with knowledge of the fraud could have also helped to stop it by reporting it to the authorities, or reporting the correct numbers on the reports. The fraudulent activities could have been detected earlier if there had been a trend or ratio analysis in place. Beam also confided the wrongdoing to his wife; therefore, she also could have also reported it.
The story “The cost of survival” states that “It is easy to argue that people should be stopped from putting themselves in danger. However, this would be impossible to enforce”. It is impossible to stop somebody from doing these risky things but you can’t stop them from doing the things that they enjoy and make them happy. The story also says that “ We know that when people believe that they are going to receive a large bill for SAR mission, they delay a call for help or they refuse to to call for help.”. It would be unfair that someone wouldn't call for help because they are going to be billed for getting help.
It is unjust that anyone should die because they disagree with another’s political, religious or other views. Terrible events like the Holocaust and 9/11 could have been avoided if people stopped looking to extremism as the solution to all problems. When an idea had less pros than cons, it is only natural that it is discouraged. Extremism should only be resorted to in the most extreme situations that require it. So, go out and spread the message that there are other ways of achieving things than extremism.
Can we truly believe that just one or two bad apples cause these scandals? The environment is such that performance is rewarded, such behavior leads to rewards and everybody around them gets away with it, so why not do it too? Their managers may not direct them to behave unethically but certainly created the culture to behave so. Can Rupert Murdoch and his senior management get away with the excuse of “being in the dark”? I agree that they can’t be responsible for everything that happens in an organisation, but they must certainly shoulder some of the blame for creating conditions for the actions.
You are correct that blame would kill creativity in the tech industry, because the industry thrives off of taking risks to shorten latency on projects or to try something nobody knows they need yet. 2I also concur that there needs to be an objective devil’s advocate, to make sure there isn’t just change for the sake of change. You address this and say this is your roll. But this is tricky, as I have ran into with running
. In my opinion all this business ideas are examples of ethical egoism, the group is so focused in getting money in a short amount of time, that they don 't care the harm they might cause to others by doing so. They are pursuing their interest disregarding the consequences for others . In the case of the synthetic cannabinoids, there was severe side effects that the product could cause to their customers, since there was no way to test it, it would not be save to offer a product that might harm people, beside the legal consequences of doing so. This reflect an ethical egoism since they are only acting from a self interest perspective.
However, this line of analysis would lead to justiciability problems, because the loss of faith argument could also extend to those who have not even been victim to the data breach. For example, when online shopping technologies first entered the marketplace, many users feared that their transactions would not be secure and therefore refrained from making purchases online. This results in self-censorship or feelings of anxiety over control of information can arise from the fear of new technologies or from observation of others ' compromised personal information. But, even if courts were to consider such an open-ended definition of harm, the underlying cause of action could curtail lawsuits from parties whose data was not actually breached. Thus, while some definitions of harm are more applicable or feasible than others in the privacy breach context, the availability of multiple definitions of harm indicates that the courts in question did make a choice to select some types of harm over others for the purpose of evaluating standing, with little explanation.