Question

1. Are any of the four traditional ethical theories we examined—i.e., consequence-based, duty based, contract-based, and character-based—adequate to handle moral issues that arise as a result of cybertechnology? If not, is an alternative kind of ethical theory needed, as some have argued (e.g., Adam 2008)? Or can a comprehensive, integrated theory, such as the one proposed by James Moor (i.e., his theory of “just consequentialism”) be used successfully to resolve moral issues involving cybertechnology?

Answer 1

In my opinion, both social contract theory and duty ethics are sufficient enough to fight issues on cybertechnology. Social contract suggests that the state would protect people and their properties against each other and in return, the citizens would sacrifice some of their rights by following the laws and rules. Secondly, duty ethics suggests that an act would be ethical if it fulfils it duty without worrying about the consequences. This would mean that the government has a responsibility and duty to protect the citizens against anyone or actions that affect them. Thus, including actions and policies that would fight the cybertechnology crimes and issues through the social contract lens and duty ethics lens would be sufficient enough.

Thank you for the question. Please rate if you like the answer.