Who Gets the Email

Should Justin Ellsworth's Parents have been given access to his email?  No.“

Privacy

is the interest that individuals have in sustaining a ‘personal space’, free from interference by other people and organizations.”

Privacy is a reasonable expectation that Justin M. Ellsworth could have assumed when he signed-up for an email account with Yahoo! Our email accounts emulate a place where we can go to have our personal space, keep private documents, and keep our innermost feelings typed in our privacy. I am certain Justin’s parents meant well when they challenged Yahoo’s! privacy agreement and obtained a court order to disclose Justin’s emails after his unfortunate death defending the freedoms we enjoy. However, in the quest of his parents to obtain Justin’s last thoughts, could they have unveiled a personal life that would of changed their opinion of him? This and other utilitarian and deontological moral ethics should be considered when confronted with the decision to invade someone’s privacy. In the utilitarian concept of ethics, an action is good if it creates more happiness than unhappiness for the greater good. If Yahoo! had given Ellsworth’s parents Justin’s account password, that action would have been good only for them and created a happy atmosphere for them only. This action is contrary to the utilitarian theory since it didn’t create happiness for the greater public. In addition, did his parents consider the consequences of reading Justin’s private emails? In the quest of understanding Justin’s last thoughts, they might have discovered information that could have changed their opinion of him instead of preserving the way they last remembered him. Lastly, the judge did not consider the consequences of his actions by granting the order. When the judge granted Justin’s parents the right to obtain Justin’s email, he provided happiness for his parents, instead of making a moral decision of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Under the Deontological...