« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »

March 27, 2005

Advertisement and Ethics

Almost everybody hates SPAM. I know I don't want to increase any parts of my body or send my money to Nigeria, but I still get those e-mails in my mailbox. Certainly I try fight it and I usually win the fight (since the spamers want me to look at the message and my spam filtering software gets rid of those messages, I consider myself to be the winner, although it's not 100% true). On the other hand, very few talk about POST-mail spam. As it is much easier to create e-mail spam, it is much easier to fight it too. Post-mail is hard to fight. There is no automatic tool that I can install on my computer to fight it. Furthermore, as there is a threat of getting a false-positive when my spam-filtering software is doing its work, there is even a higher probability of trashing what I need when I look through my mail. Why? Because it's always possible for that $700 check or even a bill to get stack between pages of some advertisement booklet. Hence, I have to look through almost every advertisement I get by mail.
But I have a solution! Or at least something that will lower that spam I get through the post office. If AOL thinks that its doing something ethical when it blocks certain servers, why can't Post Office do the same? I'm not going to say that it is unethical. Furthermore, I'm not asking them to look through my mail, just not TAKE mail from certain businesses known to send mail to "current resident". It should be illegal to send out spam, so if Post Office is not obliged by law to not help others commit such crime, it is ethically obliged for sure. ...An easy solution which will never be implemented...

Posted by ILAsoft at 10:37 PM

March 26, 2005

Internet and Ethics

Although common ethics must be followed on the internet as well as anywhere else, they might be simply insufficient. While plagiarism is clearly unethical in all fields, such things, as leeching or flooding, might be harder to distinguish simply due to their exclusive nature. DDoS attacks and other violent actions are clearly unethical, but is it unethical to not use a search function before posting in a forum? Is it unethical to use ALL CAPS when submitting a message or sending an e-mail? At last, is it ethical to not follow various conventions like spelling?
Internet ethics is something that has not been clearly established yet and thus the hardest to follow. Furthermore, if common plagiarism might be something you never thought of simply because you never create anything, when you use internet, even if you just look around, you have to know about numerous ethical rules. Just as it might be unethical to walk around in a mask, it might be unethical to access websites with an anonymous proxy. When one thinks of using internet, they also have to think of how they will do it.

P.S. Webliography has been updated once again...

Posted by ILAsoft at 4:52 PM

March 19, 2005

Ehics.1-Ehics.2+Ehics.3=Ehics.X

In the Individual Ethics vs Society Ethics article I compared ethics of "one" to ethics of "many". A more general question is actually whether ethics can be compared at all. This would be similar to asking a moral question: "Does one have a right to lie (thy shalln't lie) to not harm another human being (thy shalln't harm)," or, in other words, whether there are different levels of moral values (i.e. protection is level 4, while truth is level 2).
So do ethics have various weight categories? Say person A does some cryptic research and eventually comes up with results that would be of great benefit for the society. Nevertheless, he is afraid to publish his findings as the country of his citizenship has laws that prohibit such actions. To circumvent this and to let the society know of his finding, person A covertly transmits all the data to person B who resides outside of the country. Person B publishes all of the A's data and results under his own name to protect A's life. In doing so, B simply plagiarizes A, even though his intent is beneficial. It is unethical to plagiarize, but it is ethical to try to protect other people and to release information of benefit to the society. If we say that ethics have categories, than we can make plagiarizing=-3, life protection=5, information release=3, which would lead to total being positive 5 and mean that the actions of person B were completely ethical. I tend to disagree and say that while person B behaved ethically for the most part he also behaved unethically by plagiarizing A, even though he might've not had another choice. Person B should be happy for doing what is right, but his conscience shouldn't let him sleep well until he undoes what he did wrong.

Posted by ILAsoft at 1:40 PM

March 15, 2005

...I shall make it good for you, even against thy will!

Is it ethical to go against one's will? Is it ethical to do so for their benefit?
Let’s say you know that your 5 year old nephew wants a radio-controlled car, but since he is old enough to read on his own, you buy him a colorful and interesting book instead. You know that he won't be too happy, but you argue that as he gets older he will thank you. You argue that your actions actually show that you really love him, as you are doing what is best for him. I say, "Unethical!" If you want to buy him a book, do so as an addition, but if you know that he wants a car for his birthday, buy a damn car- it's his day after all! He has a right to decide what is best for him on his own, no matter what age he is...
Now, on another side of the impact spectrum, you got that "terminally sick relative". You know he is going to commit suicide (euthanasia). Is it ethical to stop him? What if he asks you to help, is it ethical not to help? Would you have an obligation to prevent it or to help it? This is a question I cannot answer with the same confidence and pray won't ever have to...

This article is second in series of my "Relative's Will" articles (first is Individual Ethics vs Society Ethics). I might write a few more articles using this example as it seems to be a very important subject that has no clear universal ethical answer.

Here are some additional readings on this topic:
* Mary Joseph argues, "There is great danger in legalising assisted suicide".
* Joanne Lynn, Janice Lynch Schuster, and Andrea Kabcenell's "Twenty Improvements in End-of-Life Care".
* Center for Palliative Care Studies website "offers expert support to hospitals, nursing homes, health systems, hospices, and other organizations that serve individuals nearing the end of life".

Posted by ILAsoft at 8:41 PM

March 13, 2005

Individual Ethics vs Society Ethics

Eventually one is faced with a problem to either help one or help many. Often, good for one is not the same, and sometimes the opposite, of good for others. It also frequently happens in ethics... Consider this: one of your relatives is very sick and asks you to take a certain amount of money to donate to some nonprofit organization that helps hungry children all over the world. If you do so, you will save many children's lives. You can also spend the money to hire a really good doctor and possibly help that relative (maybe even save their life, who knows?). At last, but not least, you can take that money for yourself. The third option is of course the least ethical, but the first two are much harder to guess on. Going against the will of your relative and possibly indirectly killing children is unethical, but not doing anything to save your relative is also unethical and immoral. What would you do in this situation?

Posted by ILAsoft at 2:29 PM

March 11, 2005

Health and Ethics

Some people deal with ethics more often then others. Doctors have to make hard life and death decisions everyday, but at first they are just ethical issues... One (un)ethical decision that a doctor can make, is to send a patient back home, when the patient believes that he or she needs their (doctor's) service. Such (possibly) unethical decision can lead to really bad consequences, and sometime even death...
Nicole DeHuff died "four days after she reportedly checked into a Los Angeles hospital, was misdiagnosed and sent home with orders to take Tylenol."

Posted by ILAsoft at 11:12 PM

March 4, 2005

TV and Ethics

Remember my Allegedly ruined life article? This one is about media also (seems like I have a lot of issues with Media Ethics ). Really, media is everywhere now and it has as much impact on our kids (let alone all those "susceptible" people) as do schools. People learn from what they hear/see on Radio/TV, that's what this technology is for... But sometimes TV goes overboard (does it?) with providing us with visuals. Sometime this week, I was watching news on some "unnamed" channel and they were showing a report on yet another terrorist attack. Unlike radio that has no visuals or newspapers that have minimum, TV has "streaming" visuals, different every so many seconds. What can they show us when they talk about a deadly terrorist attack? Certainly bodies ripped to shreds and scattered all over the place. That was 8 o'clock news mind you, that many families watch over their dinner. Distasteful dinner and bad mood for the rest of the day is nothing compared to lost lives, but what about the kids that were also watching (might have) the news? What about the relatives of those killed in the attack? Is it ethical to show such things? I'm not sure. The relatives might be against it. Parents might in fact not care; they might actually say that such things harden children's brain so that the kids will be ready for adult life... Nevertheless, the majority is probably against such displays. Yet, TV news continue to show them. May be I'm wrong and most people actually want to see them or think that we need to?

Posted by ILAsoft at 7:43 PM

March 1, 2005

Police and Ethics

Have you ever seen a police car going 20 miles over the speed limit? Police sometimes just has to go faster then the other vehicles on the road, that is why they have those lights. How about without its cool ultra-bright lights and sound? I've seen this on our local highways just way too often and I think it is unethical and should be illegal (most probably is). If people stop following laws there are supposed to protect then instead of a democratic system we will have anarchy. I don't want unethical people protecting me, it’s just too dangerous.

P.S. For more "enforce the law, brake the law", read my Purpose justifies means article.

Posted by ILAsoft at 10:24 PM