Module 1 Eth301

Should Justin Ellsworth’s Parents have been given access to his email?

You’re a grieving mother who has just lost your son to a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. All you want is any and all property that belonged to your son. You want his uniforms with the family last name attached. You want the cards that you sent him in care packages. You want those emails that you may have deleted thinking that you would have another chance to talk to your son again. You make a request with the internet provider thinking that it would be an easy process to gain access to those emails and you are met with a resounding, “NO, we cannot help you. You need a court order!” As society has become more technologically advanced and the way we communicate has changed to more of an electronic medium, how should this information be protected? In the case of Justin Ellsworth’s parents, should have the emails been treated the same as a box of letters that were sent back to Vietnam vets’ parents? In this paper I will explore the differences of utilitarian versus deontological reasoning to help us draw a conclusion on how we should protect this information. Additionally, we will look at how this translates into the modern day workforce, discussing informational privacy for employers and employees. Let us start with defining utilitarian reasoning.

According to Henry West, utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the production of happiness and reduction of unhappiness should be the standard by which actions are judged right or wrong and by which the rules of morality, laws, public polices, and social institutions are to be critically evaluated (Introduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics pg 1). So if we based the way that we protect all electronic information on a Utilitarian mode, where would that leave us? Looking for what would create the greater happiness for all? The debate here is where would the line be drawn? Where would the greater good end? If we allow access to...