Ethics in Information System Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Ethics in Information System - Research Paper Example She knows that the music company will charge her for using the same music in the other restaurant but she still does not inform the music company. Music is something which will be used as an attraction for the restaurant. It will have a soothing effect on the customers of restaurants. But still Alison is not ready to pay for the music. This is extremely wrong because she is earning profits from the music. Ethical issues like these are very common in the realm of Information Systems. Technology has made our lives easier but we do not understand that this technology is not to favor ‘us’ only but it is for everyone (Warren, M. 2006). The technology is not for us to misuse. Taking someone else’s right in the name of technology is not justified. Awareness is what is lacking in this case. Alison thinks that it is not a big deal to copy the music from one restaurant to another. When faced with an ethical dilemma proper awareness is needed. Moral decision involves ignoring once interest and doing the right thing. Everyone cannot just think about himself or herself. We have to think with the perspective of everyone involved in the dilemma and only then a correct decision can be taken. In this case Alison should contact the company from which she has purchased the music and ask their permission before using it in the second restaurant. Only after the permission of the company she can use the music otherwise not. One can understand her desire for cost cutting so she can request a discount from the company but she cannot just use it without their consent. Stake holder theory says that ethical issues should be resolved by keeping in mind the interest of all stakeholders without violating anyone’s right (Smith & Hasnas, 1999). This theory can guide Alison in this case. She can make a decision keeping in mind the interest of all stakeholders involved in the decision, namely herself and the music company. As

Majority-Minority Question in the Writings of Gandhi and Jinnah Essay Example for Free

Majority-Minority Question in the Writings of Gandhi and Jinnah Essay Two major political leaders stand out in early twentieth century history of India. These two men are Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. In the lead up to the demand of Indian political leaders for independence from British colonial rule, a major political party was formed, and named ‘The Indian Congress Party’. All areas of British colonial India was represented in the Congress party. British colonial India was made up of people of many religions; the two major ones being Hinduism and Islam. Hindus were in the majority, while Muslims were in the minority, though a sizable minority. Both Gandhi and Jinnah were members of Congress Party. The initial push for independence from British colonialism was supported by people of all religions and from all regions. Of the main actors in the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi advocated a single united India composed of people of all religions in a secular constitutional democracy. Mohammad Ali Jinnah on the other hand, wanted an India made up of two states of equal parity, Pakistan and Hindustan. Hindustan would be ruled by the majority Hindus while Pakistan would be ruled by the minority Muslims, not as a democracy, but as an Islamic state. His difference of opinion with other Congress Party leaders like Gandhi, led Jinnah to leave Congress Party and to join ‘The Muslim League’. The inability of the two different and extreme positions to reach a consensus, eventually led to the division of British colonial India into two different countries at independence in 1947: India and Pakistan. Gandhi’s Position on Indian Independence Mahatma Gandhi was first and foremost a Hindu. When Gandhi entered Indian politics by joining the Indian Congress Party, he had three major objectives in view. The first was to unite all the people from diverse regions and religions into one united, indivisible India. The second was to awaken in all Indians a sense of nationalism and moral rearmament. The third was to use non-violent civil disobedience to force the British colonialists to grant India both political and economic independence. His speeches and writings were tailored towards these three objectives. Prior to Gandhi’s entry into Indian politics, there had been agitations for political autonomy by Indians. Many of these agitations had turned violent. The British on their part forcefully put down these violent protests, with consequent heavy loss of life of protesting Indians. Gandhi institutionalized non-violent protests as an effective method of forcing British colonialists to grant, first economic concessions and later political self determination to Indians. One of Gandhi’s most quoted famous speeches is one address to all Britons and given in 1942. Leave India to God. If that is too much, then leave her to anarchy. (Gandhi, May 1942) ‘†During the struggle for freedom, Gandhi had written this speech as an appeal To Every Briton to free their possessions in Asia and Africa, especially India†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Philips and Wainwright, 567). In order for both Gandhi’s Indian Congress Party and the Muslim League to present a common front to the British for a unified Indian independence, Gandhi had meeting with Jinnah on many occasions. However, because of their diametrically opposed positions on the majority/minority issue, their talks yielded no positive results. While Gandhi and his Congress party wanted a unified India with a secular constitutional democracy, Jinnah and his Muslim League wanted a two state structure with the Muslim minority being granted political parity with the Hindu majority. Thus the stage was set for division of India into two separate political entities, one secular and the other religious. Jinnah’s Position on Hindu/Muslim Parity The stance of the Muslim minority of British colonial India was articulated by Jinnah in his speeches and talks with British colonial administrators and Gandhi. ‘In 1940 Jinnah said So far as I have understood Islam, it does not advocate a democracy which would allow the majority of non-Muslims to decide the fate of the Muslims’ (Quaid-e-Azam, Vol II) ‘†Also in 1940 Jinnah spoke of how the Muslims constituted not a mere minority, but a nation and must have their own homeland. (Gwyer and Appadorai, 1957) Hence from his speeches and writings, Ali Jinnah left no room for meaningful compromise with those like Gandhi, who wanted a unified independent India, with a secular democratic constitution. Jinnah and the Muslim minority in India feared that the Hindu majority would dominate them and subjugate them in reprisal for the way the Muslim rulers of pre-colonial India had subjugated the Hindu populace which they ruled. In the words of Burke, ‘†At best, Jinnah and his colleagues were apprehensive of the intentions of the Hindu-dominated Congress towards the Muslims, and its ability and willingness to provide for and facilitate the progress and well-being of the minorities. In short, they were seeking to â€Å"escape the yoke of the more numerous Hindus. †Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Burke, 1973) NOTES 1. Philips and Wainwright, eds. The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935-1947. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1970. 2. Speech delivered at Aligarh, March 6 1940, Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, Vol II, Khurshid Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore 3. Speech at Lahore Session of the All India Muslim League, March 22, 1940,Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-47,Vol II, Gwyer and Appadorai, 1957 4. Burke, S. M. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis (London: Oxford University Press, 1973) p. 65. Bibliography 1. Burke, S. M. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis (London: Oxford University Press, 1973) p.65. 2. Philips and Wainwright, eds. The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935-1947. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1970. 3. Speech delivered at Aligarh, March 6 1940, Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, Vol II, Khurshid Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore 4. Speech at Lahore Session of the All India Muslim League, March 22, 1940,Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-47,Vol II, Gwyer and Appadorai, 1957 Internet Sources 5. Gandhi, May 1942, quoted in â€Å"The Partition of India† http://www. english. emory. edu/Bahri/Part. html

Utilitarian Response To Objections Regarding Justice And Supererogation Philosophy Essay

Utilitarian Response To Objections Regarding Justice And Supererogation Philosophy Essay In this essay I am going to firstly explain the concept of utilitarianism. I will then discuss the problems it faces regarding both justice and supererogation before evaluating whether the arguments for these objections are convincing and whether a utilitarian can give a response. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that relies on the principle of utility to determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an act token. It is therefore a consequentialist theory, since it relies fundamentally on the principle that the moral worth of an act token is judged solely on that acts ability to maximise utility. This utility can be defined in a variety of ways, for example knowledge or preference satisfaction, however for the purpose of this essay I am going to define utility as John Stuart Mill did: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.  [1]   A general definition of utilitarianism might therefore go as follows: An act token A is morally right if and only if it produces as much or more happiness for all those involved than any available alternative. Bentham proposed a system of calculating the total value of an actions consequences, which is known as the felicific calculus  [2]  . This takes into account the intensity, duration, likelihood etc. of the pleasures and pains which result from our actions and utilitarians suggest that by using this system we are able to compare the morality of actions. They believe that we ought always to choose the act that produces the most overall utility. Some of the main objections made in response to utilitarianism are based on the concepts of justice and fairness. Some people hold that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice and that it can imply that in certain situations it is morally right for us to treat people unfairly and violate what we intuitively believe to be their moral and civil rights. These objections arise out of the fact that utilitarians determine the rightness and wrongness of all actions by using what is known as the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP). If an action satisfies this principle, then it produces the greatest happiness or utility for the greatest amount of people. This raises problems in regards to justice and in particular, the rights of the individual and democratic equality. The first justice-related objection I am going to consider is problem of the violation of rights, since, in a utilitarian society, rights are only justified if they are essential to the maximisation of happiness. Therefore if a right is not essential to the overall happiness of a given society, then a utilitarian society is not required to protect it. An example of this would be to imagine a minority group within a society who engaged in a religious practise of a sexual nature which offended the rest of the society. If this was a utilitarian society, the GHP would determine that preventing the minority group from performing these practises would be the morally right thing to do, because it would maximise the overall utility of the society. This seems intuitively problematic since it appears to violate the minoritys civil right to the freedom of religion. The second justice-related objection I am going consider relates to the nature of the GHP principle itself, and the notion that it is a purely collective principle, only concerned with maximising the overall amount of utility. An example of why this is problematic becomes apparent if we consider the act of genocide. It might be the case that in a given society, the extermination of a certain minority (E.G 100 people) would generate an increase in happiness for the majority (E.G 1,000,000 people.) Utilitarianisms GHP would determine that in this case, genocide was the morally right act to perform, since the consequence of the action would promote happiness in the larger portion of the population. However our intuitions tell us that genocide is never something we ought to do, yet in this case utilitarianism seems to tell us not only that we ought to do it, but that it is morally right. A third justice-related objection I am going to consider relates to the notion of punishment. An example of this would be to imagine that there had been a series of murders in a town that were generally believed to have been committed by a homeless man. Following these murders there has been an outbreak of rioting in the town and the murders of several other homeless people have occurred. The sheriff has a homeless man in his custody that has no friends or family and knows that by executing this man, the rioting and murders will stop. The sheriff however knows that this particular homeless man is innocent. In this case utilitarianism would determine that it is morally right to convict and consequently execute the innocent man, because it promotes the most happiness within the given community, and prevents the rioters from causing anymore pain. However this again goes against our intuitions that it is wrong to punish the innocent. These objections do at first seem very convincing because they appeal to our moral intuitions. However a utilitarian might respond to these cases by suggesting a variation on the classical version of utilitarianism: rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism determines the rightness and wrongness of an act by finding the best rules of conduct that if followed by the majority of a society, would maximise the overall utility of that society. Rule-utilitarians may therefore suggest that in the long run, the rules protecting the civil right to the freedom of religion, not committing genocide and not punishing the innocent would create more overall utility, when followed by all or the majority of a society than not following them on these particular occasions. Rule-utilitarianism might therefore suggest that to follow these rules would be the morally right thing to do. I will now move on to look at some objections to utilitarianism regarding supererogatory actions. The problem is that utilitarianism does not appear to allow for supererogatory acts. An act is said to be supererogatory if and only if it satisfies the following conditions: 1) It is morally optional 2) It is morally praiseworthy 3) It goes beyond the call of duty Since utilitarianism requires that in any situation we may find ourselves in, we are morally obligated to perform the act that brings about the best possible consequences, it appears to leave no room for supererogation. An example of this would be to imagine a man faced with a decision of whether to run into a burning building and save the five people trapped inside it himself, or to stay at a safe distance and call the emergency services. We are inclined to say that both actions are morally right since both aim to preserve the utility of the people trapped inside the building, however utilitarianism would seem to suggest that the only action that is morally right and thus morally obligatory in this situation, is for the man to run into the burning building himself, since that would maximise the utility of all the people involved. It would seem then that utilitarianism leaves no room for doing more than duty requires. Some have claimed however that utilitarianism can accommodate the three conditions of supererogation; there will often be acts which are morally optional in case where there is more than one act which would maximise utility, and some of these acts will also be morally praiseworthy. The common example used to illustrate this is that of Smith, who is given the option to save his own life or Jones life, on the basis that utility will be maximised either way. If Smith saves Jones life instead of his own, he is doing something that is both morally optional and morally praiseworthy. Smiths action of saving Jones is also often considered to go beyond the call of duty, since he is doing more for others than he is required to. However this notion of requirement seems unclear and it seems that supererogation should involve doing more of what there is moral reason to do. In this case however, utilitarianism would deny that there was more moral reason for Smith to save Jones rather than himself, since both acts would maximise utility. Utilitarianism also seems to have the consequence of suggesting that many supererogatory acts are wrong. The common example used to illustrate this is the intuitively supererogatory act of Smith taking Jones out for lunch. If taking to Jones to the most expensive restaurant in town would maximise the overall utility of everyone involved, then utilitarianism inevitably leads to the suggestion that taking Jones to a moderately priced restaurant would be morally wrong. Objections such as these have led some utilitarians to a variation of the classical theory: satisficing consequentialism. This theory determines an action as morally right if it promotes a good enough outcome, however there are some obvious problems with this theory. The main challenge facing satisficing consequentialists is to explain when an outcome is good enough; it is not clear whether there is an absolute level of goodness which we ought to abide by or whether levels of goodness are relative to each individual situation. In conclusion it seems that although utilitarianism appears at first to be correct in focussing on the consequences of our actions, the principles which form the basis of the theory are not without their problems. The objections put forward about the issues such justice and supererogation that I have considered are all very convincing and although different variations of utilitarianism have attempted to, and often been successful in responding to those objections, there appears to be no unifying version of the theory which can respond to them all. Satisficing consequentialism for example, may be successful in responding to objections regarding supererogation, but may not necessarily be adequate in responding to objections regarding justice. This is obviously problematic because it means we are left with what appears to be an incomplete moral theory. Since it appears that all the objections to utilitarianism that I have considered are rooted in the notion that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences, we might perhaps be better advised to look to a non-consequentialist theory of morality, such as deontology, for a theory of morality that does not suffer from the same objections.

The Radical Changes Resulting from the American Revolution Essay

All of us alive today have grown up learning about the American Revolution. Although it contains the word â€Å"revolution† in its name, there are many who don’t consider the American Revolution a real revolution. After considering the definition of a revolution – a radical change of an entire system, usually by war, resulting in a change of the way of life of the people involved – and the American society before and after the American Revolution, it is obvious that those who don’t consider the American Revolution a revolution are mistaken. Among the many aspects of colonial society affected by the American Revolution, those most greatly affected by the revolution were the attitude towards slavery, the role of women, and the role of trade. The Civil War, as well as events associated with it, being a large part of our history, is taught to all children in America at an early age. Growing up, we are taught the evils of slavery and how slaves were treated poorly. The evils about which we’ve been taught were actually occurring prior to the American Revolution. Over the course of the revolution, the attitude toward and treatment of slaves changed. Before the American Revolution, many people, though not all, thought of slaves as â€Å"subhuman† or as animals. Even among those who gave the slaves the good treatment they deserved, there was still a feeling that the whites were better than the slaves. How many black people did could have been seen living in their nice house with a few white slaves? None; that sight was non-existent. The few black people who were free had little money. Had they been wealthy, there was still no way they ever would have found a white person who would have been their slave. Nor would that have been allowed. ... ...heir own laws about trade (once the Constitution was written). The colonies, not Britain, could decide who they traded with and what taxes they charged; they had complete control over the system of trade. The term â€Å"revolution† requires a radical change of an entire system that changes people’s lives. Slavery, the attitudes toward women, and the trade system were only a few parts of the entire system that changed during the American Revolution. Not to mention the change in government from a Monarchy to a Democracy! People’s lives have been different ever since the American Revolution. Had the colonists never broken away from Britain, we wouldn’t be studying American history. Rather, we’d be studying British history. The large step of breaking away from England has radically changed the way the colonists lived and has had a huge influence on the way we live today. The Radical Changes Resulting from the American Revolution Essay All of us alive today have grown up learning about the American Revolution. Although it contains the word â€Å"revolution† in its name, there are many who don’t consider the American Revolution a real revolution. After considering the definition of a revolution – a radical change of an entire system, usually by war, resulting in a change of the way of life of the people involved – and the American society before and after the American Revolution, it is obvious that those who don’t consider the American Revolution a revolution are mistaken. Among the many aspects of colonial society affected by the American Revolution, those most greatly affected by the revolution were the attitude towards slavery, the role of women, and the role of trade. The Civil War, as well as events associated with it, being a large part of our history, is taught to all children in America at an early age. Growing up, we are taught the evils of slavery and how slaves were treated poorly. The evils about which we’ve been taught were actually occurring prior to the American Revolution. Over the course of the revolution, the attitude toward and treatment of slaves changed. Before the American Revolution, many people, though not all, thought of slaves as â€Å"subhuman† or as animals. Even among those who gave the slaves the good treatment they deserved, there was still a feeling that the whites were better than the slaves. How many black people did could have been seen living in their nice house with a few white slaves? None; that sight was non-existent. The few black people who were free had little money. Had they been wealthy, there was still no way they ever would have found a white person who would have been their slave. Nor would that have been allowed. ... ...heir own laws about trade (once the Constitution was written). The colonies, not Britain, could decide who they traded with and what taxes they charged; they had complete control over the system of trade. The term â€Å"revolution† requires a radical change of an entire system that changes people’s lives. Slavery, the attitudes toward women, and the trade system were only a few parts of the entire system that changed during the American Revolution. Not to mention the change in government from a Monarchy to a Democracy! People’s lives have been different ever since the American Revolution. Had the colonists never broken away from Britain, we wouldn’t be studying American history. Rather, we’d be studying British history. The large step of breaking away from England has radically changed the way the colonists lived and has had a huge influence on the way we live today.

Genetically Modified Essay

Genetic modification of organisms in a general is a biotechnological process that forces genes to behave according to certain characteristics. Changing characteristics of organisms is based on changing their DNA. It is being used for modifying genes in plants, animals or micro-organisms. One of the places it is often used is with food, in order to improve the nutritious quality, less use of chemicals such as pesticides and adding flavor. Genetically modified food is considere4d one of the modern production improvements and the largest food experiments in the world’s history. Virtually every crop we eat has undergone hundreds of years of genetic modification by farmers and scientist in search of desirable traits. The Benefits of gene technology in terms of food production are enormous. The most common genetically engineered foods contain modifications that make the plants resistant to certain diseases and herbicides, or allow them to produce their own pesticides, thereby eliminating or reducing the need to spray. Genetically modified foods are also being adapted to grown in salty, dry or frosty environments, contain edible vaccines, have a longer shelf life and be more nutritious. Even though there are several benefits to genetically modifying foods, concerns are raised regarding the negative effects caused by the modification. These concerns fall into 3 categories: economics, environmental hazards and human health risks. Environmental damage from genetically modified foods can be caused through various channels, one of the main concerns is the possibility of gene transfer to a non- targeted species. â€Å"By genetically altering crops they can be sprayed throughout the growing season, farmers are now spraying their fields three times a season†. Naturally as the weeds grow more tolerant they pass that trait to the next generation, creating what is commonly referred to as a â€Å"super weed†. Another huge concern is human impact from genetically modified foods. Several dangers have been discovered by humans who consume these foods. People with allergies tend to see an increase in reactions once consuming genetically modified foods. Others form allergies from these foods consumption. As individuals ingest more of these foods their bodily toxicity levels increase, which leads to other potentially serious health problems. Genetically modified foods has negative effect of reproduction systems. There were studies conducted showing animals becoming completely sterile in a matter of weeks, after in gestation of these foods that had to be forced fed to them. The digestive system is where the body is exposed to harmful foods, it grows bigger and reversing the damaging effects is almost impossible. Once all of these harmful things occur within a human’s body that is not designed to handle the outcome will eventually be death. There is a negative impact on biodiversity when the number of organism in the ecosystem is reduced as well as their infractions. The cross areas of genetically identical crops will tip the balance of nature and wildlife, and disrupt surrounding ecosystems. Wild plants up to miles away can be pollinated via wind-blown pollen. Some genetically modified plants may even be toxic to certain insects. Another concern is that genetically modified foods could impact the organic foods industry, this is why environmental agencies closely monitor their use. Although genetically modified foods and crops have huge benefits that may lead to solving world hunger due to the lesser production costs and increased crop yield, the dangers far outweigh them; risks and hazards that are related to it may affect human health, the environment, and society. The advantages of biotechnology prominent now are only short term, consumers should be aware of what they are eating and the health risks they are taking when consuming genetically modified foods. Correct labeling of genetically modified foods should be mandatory in all countries, so that people have their right to decide for themselves whether or not to consume these foods. Strict government controls should be implemented to regulate the planting of these crops. The future well-being of society in the long run should be thought of instead of simply satisfying the needs in the present, otherwise we will have bigger issues on top of the ones we have now.

Looking for Alibrandi Essay

â€Å"I’ll run one day. Run for my life. To be free and think for myself. Not as an Australian and as an Italian and not as an inbetween. I’ll run to be emancipated.† The novel ‘Looking for Alibrandi’ explores the senior years of Josephine â€Å"Josie† Alibrandi with her struggle in forming her identity, falling in love with Jacob Coote and the unexpected arrival of her father Michael Andretti. Through each of these important ideas the character of Josie, Jacob and Michael, grow to understand and achieve their emancipation. Being faced with hardships in life in life result in understanding of identity and knowledge. The character of Josie in the novel ‘Looking for Alibrandi is exposed to the secret of Nonna Katia’s secret affair. â€Å"Our lives, just like our names are lies.† Through the use of first person narration we are open to the frustration and confusion Josie is contemplating. â€Å"I’ve figured out that is doesn’t matter whether Im Josephine Andretti, who was as Alibrandi, who should have been a Stanford, who may never be a Coote.† This dialogue displays the maturity and understanding Josie receives in her identity and understanding of her emancipation. Through this momentous challenge the character now realises their freedom. Furthermore, Josie immaturity lead her to believe that one day she would be emancipated. â€Å"I’ll run one day. Run for my life. To be free and think for myself. Not as an Australian and as an Italian and not as an inbetween. I’ll run to be emancipated.† This dialogue displays the childlike behaviour Josie has lost on the outlook of her life. Through the novel, her self-knowledge grew as she stated, â€Å"My emancipation didn’t happen like I’d expected it to.† Through this first person narration the understanding of being a mature adult was shown towards Josie. Overcoming challenges allows the self-growth of an individual. When a character is faces with a hardship, the way in which they deal with it allows them to grow in themselves. Jacob Coote shared a romantic relationship with Josie which opened his out look on life. â€Å"I have never had to go out with an ethnic girl before.† Through this dialogue the audience is confronted with the different cultures and views Jacob believes compared to Josie. â€Å"I want all the things in life that John Barton wanted but he was too  scared to step out of his circle. But I cant do that with you.† The use of this dialogue clearly makes evident the maturity Jacob has gone through in undertaking his relationship with Josie. A characters self-knowledge is pushed to the limits through challenges. The confrontation of events allows growth through self-worth and family. Josie’s father, Michael Andretti revealed himself unexpectedly with no idea that he had a daughter. Through anger and confusion, both Josie and Michael are faced with hardships. â€Å"How dare you think that I want to be in your life!† The use of dialogue supports the frustration and hurt the character Josie is experiencing. Throughout the novel, the relationship between Michael and grows to a completely opposing, supporting and caring one. â€Å"I’d be so proud to be an Andretti†¦Dad.† Through this dialogue, it supports Michael and Josie’s discovering of their identity and outlook on life. Freedom is depicted from many struggles resulting in self discovery and self-worth. From your emancipation, to hidden family secrets, to an understanding of love, to discovering your father, all of these important undertakings result in self-knowledge and identity. Josephine Alibrandi, Jacob Coote and Michael Andretti are all characters of â€Å"Looking for Alibrandi† by Melina Marchetta who were not afraid to confront challenges within their lives.