10. The Boundaries of Cybersecurity: Ethics, Rights, and Laws 259 In Bob’s ethical dilemma, the main affected parties are Bob and the president of the organization. It could be argued that others are also impacted, including the president’s wife and his employees. We can assume that the president represents the interests of all the parties on that side of the equation. Similarly, Bob’s friends and family could also be impacted, but focusing on him will capture those wider impacts as well. After identifying the affected parties, the veil of ignorance principle is a helpful thought experiment for eliminating personal bias. The veil of ignorance is reasoning about the appropriate action to take while pretending to not know to which of the affected parties one belongs. When children are fighting over a candybar, one way to resolve the conflict is by having one child divide the candy bar and allowing the other to choose the piece he wants. This helps ensure fairness because the child doing the dividing does not know which portion of the candybar he will end up with—he is behind a “veil of ignorance.” The veil of ignorance principle helps one view the situation from the perspectives of all the affected parties, instead of just fixating on one’s own perspective. Therefore, as Bob reasons about what he should do, he needs to take seriously how the president will be impacted. If Bob were in the president’s shoes, would he want to know what happened? To help see the other side clearly, Bob might want to consult with a wise and trusted mentor. This will help him achieve distance from the situation and gain objectivity so that he can think about it more fairly. 10.1.1.2 Utilitarianism “An action then may be said to conform to the principle of utility…when its tendency to increase the happiness of the community is greater than any tendency it has to lessen it.” - Jeremy Bentham Utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences of actions. In this type of analysis, the goal is to quantify the sum total benefit versus the sum total harm. If the benefits outweigh the harms, then the action is morally acceptable. It is also called the greatest happiness principle because it seeks to maximize benefits. In utilitarianism, happiness is understood to be everyone’s ultimate goal. The analysis proceeds by trying to quantify the impact the decision will have on each of the affected parties. This is not an exact science because it is usually not possible to know exactly what impact a decision will have, but thinking it through sheds light on the consequences of different approaches. This is helpful to keep in mind when trying to reason about right and wrong. Taking Bob’s ethical dilemma as an example, what are the anticipated benefits and harms to all of the affected parties? By telling the president that he listened to the call, Bob would likely cause harm to himself (reprimand, lowered reputation, possible loss of wages) and harm to the president (humiliation, embarrassment, disappointment). Meanwhile, the benefits of confessing seem marginal for both parties. Ignorance may be considered bliss in this circumstance from the president’s perspective, and both would avoid an awkward conversation. Therefore, the harms of telling the president arguably outweigh the bene-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=