Cyber ethics
If you were to use the Google search engine for the word cyber ethics, there would be many results. The description I believe sums up cyber ethics after reading a small section of the outcomes is this: “Cyber ethics is a philosophical analysis of computer ethics which includes user actions, and what computers are programmed to do, and how this affects people and society.” (Wikipedia, 2015) While the role of cyber ethics in fostering fair practice at this time of knowledge is unmistakable, discrepancies emerge when it comes to what moral stance to take when determining specific technical capabilities and define the founding rules of participation. In particular, as cyberethics education is needed in today’s world, the resulting crisis needs to be tackled urgently. There is a greater need for a coherent approach to this form of education. There have been two approaches developed in this respect, one of which is focused on services and ethics. Essentially, the training in cyberethics should focus on deontological and non-utilitarian grounds. The practical approach, particularly for intellectual property owners, aims to maximize its use among most people and has an adverse social or economic impact.
Spinello (2011) draws attention to ethical utilitarianism, which, based on the consequences of the action, determines whether an effort is right or wrong. The ultimate objective is to promote the most happiness in general, with utilitarian ethics (Stamatellos, 2011). On the other hand, deontological thought is not about the future outcomes of a case. The first will is instead self-contained (Spinello, 2011). As such, the question of whether a deed is right or wrong is resolved from a deontological point of view based on the person’s inherent intention to perpetuate it. Dr. Stephen Gold (2010) gathers a deontological understanding in his lecture, noting that while an action may be permissible for the rest of the parties, it is not acceptable.
Given these conflicting viewpoints, it has become more critical than ever to follow a singular approach to cyber ethics. In particular, the young age at which current generations start to go online and the virulent impact peers have had on these young people (Mintz 2011) demonstrated the need for a collaborative approach to cyber-ethics education. Young people are becoming increasingly conscious that everything is going online (Mintz, 2011). While the traditional regard for physical property is still preserved in these young people, their intellectual property attitude is radically different. For instance, as the authorities say, the downloading of pirated software is not regarded as “stealing” The standard is that someone who knows someone who perpetuates cybercrimes is considered a common law (Starr, 2011).
The current philosophy of cyber ethics in the younger generation may, to no small extent, be defined as practical reasoning. If someone (Mathews) uploads a music record to a network of familiar places, it’s supposed to be shared with many of his peers. The first step in downloading a copyrighted music album is that if all of his friends download the album, Mathew’s joy will be known by as many people as possible. That it concerns people’s amusement purely and ignores the social or financial implications of this action contradicts this process’s purpose.
From the above example, the practical approach ignores the consequences of an act on others through its egoistic existence. Although Mathews may have managed to build happiness for his mates, the music band’s loss, whose album he loaded, eventually results in his behavior. This causes adverse social effects because the band will no longer be making music as the band members do not expect a reasonable return. The same can be said of other kinds, such as software or films, of intellectual property. According to Collin (2011), the Internet has stolen more than $1 trillion in intellectual property, one of the biggest ‘wealth transfers’ in history. In the end, it would weaken not only internet capability but the advantages associated with the Internet, not only because of the lack of entertainment and other services.
The essence of the deontological argument is emphasized by the recognition of the eventual effects of an action. Gold (2010) states that all rights have a corresponding duty to recognize. All who subscribes to the code acknowledges that Mathews’ rights to enjoy free music go beyond those of the music band. While Mathews was permitted to upload the song to a network of familiar places, his friends had the primary obligation to pay for the album before they could enjoy it. To teach people about cyberethics, a deontological approach must be taken to balance their inherent rights with their corresponding tasks.
In contrast, primary cyber education encourages selfish behavior by stressing the importance of individuals’ pleasure and little or no consideration for the well-being of others. By comparison, a deontological approach is better because it teaches people to analyze their goals and effects on others. A deontological method can also help prove that physical property rights are the same as rights of intellectual property. The deontological approach promotes a common good in society by considering the social and financial implications of several cyber activities