IT Ethics Dimensions of Consequentialism

Question: Discuss about the IT Ethics for Dimensions of Consequentialism. Answer: Introduction The given case study or article describes how individuals have a different point of views towards hacking. There is a website where hackers are listed out, and people are looking to use them for their illegal and legal activities. Some individuals are using hacking for their personal benefits for an example an Australian woman wants to hack her husband mobile so that she can get confirmed that her husband is cheating on her. A person forms NSW seeks to hire a hacker to hack their competitor database so that they can use it for their business because he wants to know how much the competitive company is charging their customers. Some individuals wanted their old account access as someone as already hacked it and some people want to change their grade marks. So the essay presented here is a discussion about IT ethics based on two different classical theories of ethics when implied to the given article or case study (Pro et al., 2015). Overview of Consequentialism, Deontology Here in this case study we only use two principles to understand how each theory defines the situations of hacking and its consequences. But before we explain we have to understand those two theories first. Lets define each and understand what exactly they are. Consequentialism It is a normative ethical theory that says that an action is right or wrong is entirely based on the consequence of the outcome of the perform action. So basically it means that when an individual carries out a task, then they think about the results of that completed work rather than thinking if the executed job is wrong or right (Peterson, 2013). Deontology or Non- Consequentialism It is also a normative ethical theory which explains that an action which is performed is not judged its consequence of the outcome of the executed work. To simplify it we can say that it is an action which is not carried out by just thinking about the result of that performed task or activity, the concern personal will think if the completed work is right or wrong and based on that they will carry out the task (Sunstein, 2013). Discussion on Consequentialism on Hacking Based on the given article it has been seen that individuals who are hiring the hackers are not even thinking whether the work they are asking to perform is even right or wrong. It implies to the hackers as well. Considering the ethics of consequentialism, as it says that a task or an action when performed based on the consequences without even thinking whether the work or action performed is appropriate or not (Pettys, 2012). So, in this case, the hackers or the service buyers don't even reflect on whether the job they are asking to perform is wrong or right. They are as just looking and concentrating on the consequences. It is one of the parts of consequentialism where the individual only thinks about their profit rather than thinking how it can affect the others. For example, let say a person is hiring a hacker and the individual wants the hacker to hack the database of the company to know how much the other company is charging their clients (Sykes, 2014). Now here, in this case, the hacker will think about the outcome by the end of this task because the service buyer might have said that they will be paid higher if the task is completed successfully. So here the consequences matter for both the hacker and the person who hired, but both of them didn't think about whether the task is wrong or right. They only look at the outcome or consequences of the work that is performed (Hiller et al., 2013). Discussion on Deontology on Hacking Considering another classical ethical theory Deontology is a different set of rules, this theory explains that a task, when performed, is been the judge whether the job is right or wrong and then the task is performed. In this case, the hackers or the individuals need to think about the job they are asking to complete before they look into the consequence in another word we can say that Deontology is exactly opposite to Consequentialism (Thomas, 2015). For an example based on the given article, a hacker known as Jarmaa says that if the task that is performed is right and it doesn't affect any individual by any means than there is nothing wrong in performing the work. So here the semi-unethical hacker is saying that the action needs to judge first and then we need to complete the task. So then the work that is been performed will not be illegal (Smith et al., 2015). Recommendation According to Australian law, hacking is a serious offense and can lead to at least ten years of jail sentence with a fine. So the government should not allow or block such websites to be online. Individuals should not trust on such websites and hackers because some people might have genuine reasons or a legal task to perform but they can be in real trouble if something goes wrong. The cyber security of Australia needs to keep a watch on such sites, and they have to inform the site owners that if any hacking work is performed, then the service buyers name and address has to be displayed publically for security purpose. So that if anything goes wrong, then both the hacker and the service buyer need to pay a hefty fine or may get a jail sentence. Conclusion The study concludes that hacking cant be defined as ethical and unethical because it's entirely based on the kind of task they are performing and its consequences. In this study, we have considered two theories of ethics where Consequentialism describes and explain about how it action is been carried out based on that theory and its impact on the relevant task. Similarly, when considering the other ethical theory Deontology it has been observed that the job needs to be judge first if it's wrong or right and then it will be performed. So overall the study explains about these theories along with some recommendation that needs to be considered to reduce any criminal consequences. References Hiller, A., Ilea, R., Kahn, L. (2013). Consequentialism and environmental ethics (Vol. 25). Routledge. Peterson, M. (2013).The dimensions of consequentialism: Ethics, equality and risk. Cambridge University Press. Pettys, T. E. (2012). Judicial Retention Elections, the Rule of Law, and the Rhetorical Weakness of Consequentialism.Buff. L. Rev.,60, 69. Pro, I., IT, S., addresses, R. (2015). Rent-a-hacker site leaks Australian buyers' names and addresses. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 26 May 2016, from https://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/rentahacker-site-leaks-australian-buyers-names-and-addresses-20150529-ghca3f.html Smith, I. H., Netchaeva, E., Soderberg, A., Okhuysen, G. (2015, January). The Behavioral Ethics of Deontology and Utilitarianism: Are They as Separable as They Seem?. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 14876). Academy of Management. Sunstein, C. R. (2013). Is Deontology a Heuristic? On Psychology, Neuroscience, Ethics, and Law.On Psychology, Neuroscience, Ethics, and Law (August 1, 2013). Sykes, J. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in the media [Book Review]. Thomas, A. J. (2015). Deontology, Consequentialism and Moral Realism. MinervaAn Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 19.