PimpyThePug

Directions: For your term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): if it is a paper: write 349 words (or more) of it and place in your blog. The blog entry should not contain any material already in a previous blog entry. If your project is not a paper: do the equivalent amount of work. Then describe briefly (but with specific details) what you did on your blog (for example, if you are developing a web site, you could provide a link to it. Or if you are filming a skit, you could explain who will play each part, or provide the script outline, etc., depending on how far along you are.) If you’re not sure what to do, see me or send me an email, and I will try to suggest something. Title your blog post “HW 6proj.”

Answer:

I am finished with my digital art piece. All that is left to do is touch up some places. This part is pretty straightforward. It will mostly consist of me altering any shading and color tones. There is not much shading, so that is an upside. It should be easy going from this point on.

Q1. As a “case” to discuss for this unit, use a law related to security, privacy, etc. Suggestions: HIPAA, FERPA, Computer Security Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, COPPA, Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), US Patriot Act, Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or some other law. 

• A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.

• A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.

• A list of questions (5 or more) to think about or discuss about the case.

Answer:

The source of my case is http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/CodeOfAlabama/1975/8-38-3.htm.

Eight important facts are:

1. This is a data security law implemented by the state of Alabama.

2. The law states that there should be implementation and maintenance of security measures to protect private identity information.

3. This law applies to state, county or municipality, and third-party agents.

4. The law forces organizations to designate an employee or employee to protect the information in case of a data breach.

5. Organizations must identify possible internal and external risks.

6. The effectiveness of the safeguard must be assessed.

7. The security measure must be practicable.

8. “The amount of sensitive personally identifying information and the type of activities for which the sensitive personally identifying information is accessed, acquired, maintained, stored, utilized, or communicated by, or on behalf of, the covered entity.”

Five questions to ask about the case are:

1. Do you believe that this is an adequate law to enforce data security?

2. How accountable do you think the state is holding itself and other entities with this law?

3. Do you notice anything interesting about the law?

4. If you could, how would you modify this law?

5. Is this law within your expectation of how a state would enforce data security?

Three additional standard questions:

• What does virtue ethics say about this case?

• What does utilitarianism say about this case?

• What does deontology say about this case?

Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

• “The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.

• “Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions.

• “My conclusions.” Your conclusions and opinions about the case. Be sure to explain and justify what you write. 3 sentences of average length or more.

• “Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way, such that the ethical issues of the case would be even more important than they are in today’s world. 3 sentences of average length or more.

• “Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it. 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case. The gamer code of conduct is supposed to enforce the expectations of the gaming community. The code promotes asking questions and detailed discussion. Students are the main followers of this particular gamer code. Esports staff is expected to assist students in following the code of conduct to ensure that they are respectful to one another.

Analysis. Is this a gamer code of conduct for everyone? Or is this code more suited to gaming in a learning environment? How can the code’s creator expect students to follow the code? If esports staff is always present to enforce the code, are the students following it of their own will?

Future Environment. In the future, gaming will evolve. There will be more ways to do misconduct in the gaming community. Also, there will be more methods to prevent misconduct. The gaming code of conduct will evolve to include VR gaming, Cloud gaming, ARGs, and whatever other newer forms of gaming. These forms of gaming will be further introduced in learning environments.

• The code is a combination of the three ethic theories. The code is made of rules that you should follow to promote virtue in society.

• Part two is mostly associated with deontological ethics. 

• Part 3 is utilitarianism and virtue. Being virtuous to the people in society and the workplace.

• Part 4 is deontological. Follow the code of ethics.

• The ten commandments are pretty much out of the window in this day and age. 

• Sports code of ethics will likely be virtuous, utilitarian, and deontological. Players should follow the rules so that no one gets hurt.

• Law is similar to ethics. Law is the method society uses to enforce ethics. Law is something that society implements and upholds to guarantee ethical standards.

• Legal Positivism is what makes murder unacceptable. Humans naturally have conflict. Committing murder is naturally wrong to humans, but the laws are what hold it all together. They both play a role. 

Q1. For your ethics-related term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): Let us continue to develop it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up 349 words or more (per person if a group project) if your project is a writing project. If it is not a writing project, do work on the project equivalent in effort to writing 349 words or more, and explain specifically what you did (in much less than 349 words!), giving examples (code, for example) if that makes sense. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently per the example template.

Answer:

I have created the first draft of my digital art piece. It is a basic sketch of the concepts I want to implement into the final draft. There is currently no color and not every detail has been added that I want to display. It is a sketch of a sentient pyramid peering down on people in ruined states. The pyramid is also wearing a hat that symbolizes one of the major trading platforms used by beginner traders/investors. The pyramid is being held up by a very nice-looking hedge. It is difficult to explain the image without a visual representation but that is the best description I can give for the imagination.

Q2. Explain what needs to be done next on the project. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently per the example template.

Answer:

Next, I need to determine whether I want to move on with the current draft or scrap it for a new one. If I decide to keep the current draft, it will have to be revised to look cleaner. In addition to cleaning up the draft, I will have to add more detail to the draft.

• I previously chose Kim, the grad student. Now I have decided Hardik.

• I decided to let it go. I do not think what he said was a big deal.

• I chose to scrap the appointment and go with my wife.

• I decided not to go to the seminar. If Hardik already understands the responsibilities, he should prioritize his wife. Also, it would be bad to go back on a promise I made to my wife.

• I decided to take a break and eat. I Hardik has not talked to JD in a while so he needs to socialize.

• I scraped the experiment. I should see my wife and her parents. I did not want to join late because I do not know how my wife and family would feel.

• I told the truth. The PI should understand but of course, he favors Greg.

• I offer to go with Kim. I think it would be best to support Kim.

• I tell Kim to speak in hypotheticals. This is to ease her into telling the truth.

• I got scooped. But I believe that the outcome was not fair. Hardik is a PI and he already understands the information in the seminar. I do not believe that such a great PI would make a mistake like that. But that's the plot I guess.

• I tried again and went to the seminar. This time the article got published.

Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

• “The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.

• “Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the consequentialist and deontological approaches.

• “Conclusions.” 

• “Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way.

• “Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it.

Answer:

The facts of the case.

The root of the case is that in 2011 a Gucci Store in Shenzhen, China was accused by five employees of unequal and inhuman work conditions. The employees sent a letter to the headquarters and resigned but no real action was taken. The story spread on social media and after the company went under fire the employees were taken seriously. It took an investigation by the Human Resource Bureau for the five employees to receive justice.

Analysis.  

The five employees were likely pushed to the brink under harsh conditions and decided to seek help from the headquarters expecting a response. The headquarters likely tried to brush things under the rug until the story was exposed to the public. The Gucci headquarters was under pressure from the public and the Human Resource Bureau. Therefore, the Gucci headquarters was forced to give an adequate response to reduce the backlash they would receive. The headquarter probably already knew of the working conditions but had successfully prevented any issues from happening until this case. If it was not for social media, the five employees would be out of a job and never get justice. Gucci's behavior goes against virtue ethics. What was occurring at the Gucci Store in Shenzhen, China was not moral. The mistreatment of humans regardless of the environment violates the idea of being moral.

Conclusions. 

The Gucci headquarters later released a statement saying “Gucci does not and will not endorse or tolerate the alleged malpractices.” And with the assistance of the Human Resource Bureau the five employees got a settlement from Gucci for their troubles. The store manager and assistant manager were also replaced as a result of the Gucci headquarter’s response.

Future Environment. 

In a future environment, the development of social media and outlets for communicating mistreatment would be highly advanced. A story like this would not go unseen and the company would have received a wider spread backlash. 

Future scenario. 

• The root of ethics is emotion. What feels wrong? What feels right? If a person feels guilt, then it is wrong. If they do not, then all is good.

• Ethics springs from sentiment. Sentiment is an emotion that is felt.

• Ethics should not be universal. There should be varying degrees of ethics for various entities.

• The issue is virtuous. It would be virtuous to repay the favor. Martians may not understand because they are not a part of the population that established this rule.

• Benevolence is generally showing kindness. A benevolent person is kind to others.

• Benefits to society should not be a measure. Factory workers keep society running but doctors save lives. 

• Humes is really focused on the benefits to society. But is that all there is to it? Should people only be benevolent because it benefits society? I believe that people can do it for personal benefits too. The conviction might be even stronger if it was for personal benefit.

• Theory 5: You would feel guilty if the kid fell into the well.

• It would be impossible to construct ethics from pure logic. Sometimes the reasonable choice is crueler than the sentimental one. People often do things that are not logical for a better outcome in their opinion.

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to intellectual property. Online students will post their notes to their blog. Your notes should include the following.

• A link or other citation to the case you are using; if it is from personal experience, point that out.

• A list of 5 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.

• A list of questions (3 or more) that you could consider yourself or ask someone else about (for online students); see the “Questions to ask during discussion” tab on the course web page for some suggestions in developing your discussion questions.

Answer: The source of my case is https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/622/931/2395863/.

Five important facts are:

1. The general basis of the dispute was a disagreement about the use of the phrase “star wars” to refer to an anti-nuclear defense system in space.

2. LUCASFILM, the plaintiff, sought a resolution that would restrict the use of the phrase “star wars” when referring to the anti-nuclear defense system to protect the positive reputation of the space fantasy film franchise “STAR WARS”.

3. HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA had the upper hand in this case because what they were communicating with the phrase “star wars” was not a product or competitive agenda but an idea.

4. The case was heavily skewed towards the defendants, HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA because LUCASFILM’s “STAR WARS” used the words “star” and “wars” which were already a part of the public domain. LUCASFILM gave the phrase a second meaning, which caused conflict between the English language meaning, further hindering their case.

5. LUCASFILM was unable to receive the resolution they sought because the phrase “star” and “wars” were common words in the English language. Meaning they fell outside the scope of the copyright.

Three questions to ask about the case are:

1. Do you all think HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA unknowingly used the phrase “star wars” in relation to the franchise “STAR WARS” to further their political agenda? 

2. Every claim LUCASFILM made was rebutted by the court. Did LUCASFILM know the extent of their copyright’s power given that this case was so unfavorable to them?

3. Who do you all believe should have won this case? HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA or LUCASFILM?

Three additional standard questions:

• What does virtue ethics say about this case?

• What does utilitarianism say about this case?

• What does deontology say about this case?

• Trust

• Moral

• Humble

• Selfless

• Honest

How to improve these traits?

It takes continuous practice. A person must know when someone else does not deserve these traits. Eventually, a person with these traits will be able to judge when it is necessary to display them.

Does an ethical person get there by 1) Following the right rules (deontological ethics)? Or 2) Getting positive results (utilitarian ethics)?

Deontological ethics. Every situation may not turn out the way it is expected to. There are too many factors to account for to be wary of that. Therefore, the effort to do something ethical by the right means is more respectable. Many atrocities can be committed on the path to getting positive results through utilitarian ethics.

Do you lean more toward utilitarianism or deontology?

Deontology.

Scenario a: A hungry homeless person asks for food money
Were you ethical? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)

Yes. Give the homeless person the money because regardless of whether they use it to get drunk or not your method was pure and your intentions were good. (Deontologism)

Scenario b:  You refuse and offer him a job
Were you ethical? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)

Yes. Offer the homeless person the job because the method of approach is good and what is being offered is better. If the homeless person whether the homeless person gets sick or not the intended outcome was good. (Deontologism)

“The ends justify the means”

Do they? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)

No. If the means involved doing things that would harm other people then that does not justify the end. The method to get there matters.

Is the concept of “a war to end all wars” ethical?
No. Humans will fight forever whether it be over the smallest or largest thing. A war to end all wars would either involve killing the opposition or suppressing them to the point that they might as well be dead.

What is the Golden Rule?
Treat others how you want to be treated.
Does The Declaration of Independence contain the categorical imperative?
Well, it does. But we all know that for a long period of time it was not upheld.
What do you think of the categorical imperative?
It is idealistic. It is not wrong to think the way Kant does. However, to think everyone will is not realistic.
What about punishing “pre-crime” as in the movie “Minority Report”?
It would be a deontological approach. The crime may not have been committed entirely but the intent was to commit the crime. Punishing the intent is the better way to go about it.
How is this an example of the deontological, utilitarian, and/or virtue approach to ethics? The rule to prevent harm is utilitarian. The rest is mostly deontological. The rest of the outdoor ethics is meant to prevent the process that would lead to destruction and harm in the park.
So what should we do? What about virtue ethics for these questions?
There should be an equal balance between all three. Deontology covers the ethics of the process to the end. Utilitarianism covers the ethics of the end. And virtue should be defined by the combination of both deontology and utilitarianism.
Ends vs. means:
Which is the focus of deontological ethics?
Means
Which is the focus of utilitarian ethics?
Ends