CASE 2 ETHICS - Informational Privacy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

CASE 2 ETHICS - Informational Privacy - Essay Example The question is: Should Justin Ellsworth's parents have been given access to his e-mail? Utilitarianism says that this action is right because his parents are worthy stakeholders and their happiness weigh more than a dead person’s privacy and confidentiality rights, while this action is immoral for deontological reasons because Yahoo! has a duty to its users and not their parents and because privacy and confidentiality respect people as ends and must be protected at all times. Utilitarianism says that Justin’s parents deserve access to his e-mail because this action leads to their net good, where the vital people end up being happy. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, where people aim to maximize the utility of their decisions (Brooks & Dunn, 2010, p.183). This ethical theory maintains that an action is good, if it results to a net good to the greatest number of people (Brooks & Dunn, 2010, p.183). The number and nature of consequences rationalize the morality of people’s decisions. Yahoo! did the right thing when it did not release the e-mail contents immediately to Justin’s parents because they did not have the right to it. Confidentiality terms indicate that Yahoo! gives all users the assurance that the latter’s information would not be disclosed without consent from the subject. Justin Ellsworth, although dead, has privacy rights over his e-mail. Privacy is a person’s yearning to control the access of others to themselves. By keeping the e-mail contents confidential, Yahoo! respects the privacy of all users. Users appreciate the protection of their privacy through the confidentiality of their data. Their happiness is considered as a high net good of Yahoo!’s efforts for privacy and confidentiality. Justin has a right to keep his e-mail private. However, his parents’ happiness must be considered too. Using act utilitarianism, this paper evaluates specific actions, instead of the rules that aff ect them, in arriving at moral decisions (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2011, p.159). Parents are more important stakeholders than the general public and Yahoo! because the former are the reasons for Justin’s existence. Society should respect their interests and happiness too. If access to Justin’s e-mail content will make them happy, then their happiness is more essential than other people. Furthermore, the user is dead. His interest is not more relevant than his parents, who can gain peace of mind from his e-mail. Utilitarianism justifies the consequences, where direct family members have the right to gain access to the deceased’s information, even if it violates privacy and confidentiality. Deontology, on the contrary, asserts that Justin’s parents should not access his e-mail because of the following reasons: Yahoo! has a duty to its users, not to their families; this action cannot be universalized; and it treats Justin as a means to his parents†™ ends. Deontology is concerned of individual rights and the intentions connected to specific actions, not their consequences (Ferrell et al., 2011, p.159). Obligations and duties that impact actions are decisive elements of deontology (Brooks & Dunn, 2010, p.184). Deontologists believe that there are things that cannot be done, even when they result to the highest utility (Ferrell et al., 2011, p.159). Justin’s parents should not be able to access his e-mail