Part A: Theoretical Analysis of Normative Ethics

(a) Purpose and Summary 

Purpose of Normative Ethical Theory

According to Johnson and Cureton (2004), in order to foster a systematic framework that evaluates the actions and intentions, it is known as normative ethical theory. This also considers the specific characters required for determination of what is morally right or good. However, this differs from the descriptive ethics that is more focused on evaluating how people typically behave. but the normative ethics is known for prescribing individuals on how they ought to act. Hence, this can be considered a set of rational principles, and they serve some specific functions. For example, they offer principles for deciding morally, as seen in Kant’s categorical imperative. Another function is justification, which is the provision of reasoned defences in favour of some moral judgements. One example of ‘justification’ is the utilitarian calculations. The last function is resolution, as seen in rights versus welfare; because they help in arbitration between the different competing moral claims. Overall, the normative theories are considered to be fundamental and not situational because they cannot be selectively applied over a span of different domains. This requires a determination of universal validity according to Armstrong (2003), like the use of utilitarianism in medicine; but Kantianism theory is used in business.

Key Theories Summary

1. Utilitarianism 

The core principle of Utilitarianism refers to the morality of an act, which is a variable and depends on different consequences. It comprises classic utilitarianism, where the actions are often held right in case, they are maximising the pleasure (Armstrong, 2003). For example, ‘never lying’ is universally accepted; because lying can erode trust between two-or-more parties.

• Kantian Ethics 

The Kantian ethical theory is driven by rational duty and not consequences. Therefore, its core principle supports such morality. Therefore, some maxims that can be universal laws are the act of categorical imperatives, claims Johnson and Cureton (2004). But there are certain formulations to this theory, like comprising the Universal Law and the Humanity Formula. One example is a registered nurse refusing to euthanize a patient to end his suffering. So, the nurse justifies her action that the decision is based on her professional obligation and duty to preserve the lives of humans. 

• Virtue Ethics 

This is another key theory of ethics where the core principles focus on character and flourishing morals (aka eudaimonia). So, acts of courage/honesty are empowered by this virtual ethics; as it is known for cultivating through practice and practical wisdom among people (phronesis), states Hursthouse & Pettigrove (2022).

Conflicting perspectives

There can be conflicts between the core principles of Utilitarianism and Kantianism because the former may justify the violation of individual rights. but the later theory forbids such acts and believes in treating people as means. Similarly, the conflict between virtue ethics and the rule-based theory can also be established, where the Kantianism theory has more rigid rules and therefore is often known for ignoring the contextual complexities. But the virtue ethics theory does not believe in rigidity and allows more flexibility.

(b) Chosen theory—Virtue Ethics

Foundational Concepts 

1. Virtues and Vices: There are certain fundamental concepts in the virtue ethics theories comprising its virtues and vices. On one hand, the Virtues show the excellence of characteristics of people; like, honesty. Therefore, the theory encourages such characters, as it enables productive scenarios. While, the Vices is the opposite, which hinders such flourishing growth, like being cowardly.
2. Practical Wisdom (Phronesis): This concept is focused on the capacity of the theory to discern the morally salient features of a particular situation. For example, it has often been seen that being honest might harm a specific person or might bring unfavourable outcomes. Therefore, according to Hursthouse & Pettigrove (2022), it is a wise choice to act according to the need-of-the-hour. However, this can be contrasted with the rigid rule-following. Therefore, an example is the competency and skill a virtuous person has because he knows when to moderate the rules to promote a greater good.
3. Eudaimonia: This concept focuses on production being achieved when virtuous activities are performed and not just pleasure or duty. For example, the patience of a teacher is instrumental for benefitting the students. However, it also deeply demonstrates their individual moral growth, which is intrinsic in nature.

Strengths of virtue ethics

I have chosen virtue ethics because of its holistic approach, as it is capable of integrating emotions and relationships while facilitating moral development. Furthermore, this approach avoids the reductionism/reductivism of utilitarianism or deontology. Apparently, there is scope for more flexibility in this theory because it adapts to the cultural and situational differences as well.

(c) Criticisms

#1. Lack of Action-Guidance: The major criticism faced by virtual ethics is because of its failure to provide clear rules to its followers. For example, it promotes being honest but does not specify when lying can be permissible. or any exceptions have also not been mentioned in the theory. 

In response to the criticism, virtue ethics is more nuanced and offers guidance that is superior to following the rigid rules. The V-rules are alike; provide more general directives. But still, it allows scope for contextual judgement, like doing what may seem kind. 

#2. Cultural Relativism: Another criticism of virtue ethics is its variability across different cultures. For example, humility in Confucianism vs. Assertiveness is more common in the western cultures compared to eastern cultures.

Therefore, in response to this criticism, it can be said that the core virtues, like courage, wisdom, or honesty, are more universally accepted. However their expressions might vary, it does not mitigate the effectiveness or objectivity.

#3. Justification Issue: Virtue ethics is further condemned because circularity is risky due to its certain traits.

However, responding to it, when the virtues contribute to flourishing scenarios, then such risks get justified. There are empirical observations to this where honesty is seen as fostering trust and also enhancing social cooperation. further correlation between Neo-Aristotelians (a form of ethical naturalism); establishes a link between the social and biological needs that justify the objective of the theory.

Part B: Applied Ethics Case Study

(a) Ethical Situation 

The given scenario focuses on an IT company, namely the DP solutions. Peter, the software developer in the company, has been allocated a task where a new data access protocol needs to be implemented on behalf of the client. This particular data access protocol is going to speed data encryption and cybersecurity services for a financial institution. Therefore, the work has to be done meticulously, by focusing upon all the intricate details. However, during the implementation process, a certain vulnerability has been identified in the protocol. It is important to acknowledge it in real time so that any potential exposure could lead to a data breach of all the sensitive customers of the client company. Simultaneously, DP solutions are also facing the deadline issue because there is extreme pressure to meet the time frame but at minimal costs. However, an extension to the deadline could lead to enhanced costs. But, without addressing the vulnerability, the potential for data breach remains minimal, according to Peter. The objective here was to avoid any further delay or cost expansion. But despite his instructions, Peter faced a significant ethical dilemma. However, according to the analysis, there are only a few options and alternatives that can be facilitated by him.

1. Option 1: Either he can proceed with the implementation by ignoring the vulnerability. However, this can distort the relationship between their client and the company. Furthermore, the exploitation of the data is possible if the issue is not addressed.
2. Option 2: Another alternative could be to delay the implementation and resolve the issue as early as possible. Insisting that to the client, to extend the deadline can further lead to increased costs.
3. Option 3: The third option could be to execute the implementation according to the initial deadline. However, to ensure that any further complication can be avoided in advance, Peter can immediately escalate the situation directly to the project manager.

Implications

All the respective three options might lead to different implications and repercussions. For example, the first option might lead to severe data breaches. As a result, it might also cause financial losses for the client company. Most importantly, the client can defame DP solutions, and apparently the organisational reputation will be damaged. Now, option 2 would be beneficial in the long run; however, it can delay the project. Therefore, this is going to be a financial loss for the client company. Lastly, option 3 could be a negotiated alternative where Peter would be at a lesser risk. Thus, it is important to adapt the right option, so the ethical dilemma can be mitigated.

(b) Ethical Theory Application: Kantian Deontology 

Categorical Imperative (CI) can be considered to be the focal area of Kantian Deontology. So, this is considered a supreme principle of morality where duty and obligation are always emphasised (Johnson & Cureton, 2004). Simultaneously, rational beings are considered to have or follow through on an inherent dignity. Therefore, according to the philosophy of Kant, it has been determined that universalizable maxims should be the court that encourages the final act. Simultaneously treating humanity is considered to be the end of itself instead of accounting it as barely a means. Therefore, the primary act of goodwill is found to be highly driven by duty instead of the individual inclinations. Therefore, applying Kant’s framework to the case study of Peter and SP solutions, the following are some of the findings.

• Firstly, by applying the framework to the case study, choosing the first option might lead to dismissing the Universal Law Formula. According to this principle, ignoring the critical vulnerabilities just to meet the predetermined deadline can be self-defeating in itself. Besides, the customers and clients should not be treated as just the means of business because this violates the Humanity Formula.
• If the second option is chosen, then by applying Kantian deontology principles, Peter could easily uphold his responsibilities and protect the norm of data integrity. This shows how to offer inherent dignity to the clients and their customers. Therefore, this particular strategy can be universalized, especially relevant for the IT sector, where security is a top priority.
• Lastly, if the 3rd option is chosen, then this could also be problematic because of leaving the vulnerable system accessible to their client company. while their respective customers have to face issues.

Option Selection

Therefore, based on the application of Kantian deontology, it is important to address the vulnerability; and then implement it after being properly evaluated. Even though there are going to be some negative consequences of the project delay. But in the long run, it will be beneficial and offer sustainability to the clients. Therefore, only the second option should be implemented and accepted, while the other documented escalations must be internally resolved.

References

Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2004). Kant’s moral philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/?ref=quillette 

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003). Consequentialism. Plato.stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_x-social-details_comments-action_comment-text 

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2022, October 11). Virtue Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/