Hacking Into Harvard Please Respond To The Following

Hacking Into Harvard Please Respond To The Following

Read Case 21: Hacking into Harvard, located on page 71 of your textbook. As applicants argued against penalties from business schools, they cited consequentialist and no consequentialist justifications. Some claimed their intentions were benign, while others believed checking application statuses posed no harm. Review the case and analyze the students' actions from a Kantian perspective, considering whether these actions are permissible according to the standard of universal acceptability.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of students hacking into Harvard’s admissions system presents a compelling scenario for evaluating ethical behavior through a Kantian lens. Kantian ethics emphasizes the importance of intention, duty, and adherence to moral principles that can be universally upheld. This perspective evaluates whether an action is morally permissible based on whether it can be consistently willed as a universal law, without contradiction, and whether it respects the inherent dignity of all individuals involved.

From a Kantian standpoint, actions are judged based on the moral law: acting only according to maxims that could be universally adopted without contradiction. Applying this to the case of the students hacking into Harvard’s system, we must ask whether their actions could be universally accepted as a moral norm. If everyone were to hack into admissions systems whenever they felt justified, the integrity and security of institutions would be undermined, leading to a collapse of trust necessary for societal functioning. Thus, the maxim behind hacking—"It is acceptable to breach institutional security for personal benefit"—cannot be universally willed without leading to a paradox, as it would delegitimize the very systems that sustain societal cooperation.

Furthermore, Kantian ethics emphasizes respecting individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. In this case, the students’ decision to hack into the system using deception arguably violates this principle. The action treats the admissions office and Harvard as mere means to an end—seeking insight into application statuses—without regard for the institution’s right to security and privacy. This disregard diminishes the dignity of the institution and its stakeholders, contravening Kant’s principle that individuals and institutions should be treated with respect and for their inherent worth.

The students, though perhaps motivated by benign intentions—such as trying to understand their application status—still employ dishonest methods. Kantian ethics would evaluate not just the intention, but the universalizability of the action. Even if the students did not intend harm, the act of hacking itself involves deception, breach of trust, and violation of system integrity. Under a universal law, if everyone acted similarly, the outcome would be a chaotic erosion of trust across institutions, making such actions morally impermissible.

Moreover, Kant emphasizes duty and moral law over consequences. The students had a duty to respect institutional rules and the privacy of other applicants. Their decision to hack represents a failure to fulfill this duty because it involves an act that violates established norms and laws. Even if their motives were innocent, Kantian ethics would consider the act morally wrong due to its violation of a duty to uphold honesty and respect for societal rules.

In conclusion, from a Kantian perspective, the actions of hacking into Harvard’s application system are impermissible. The act cannot be consistently universalized as a moral law without contradiction, and it disrespects the inherent dignity of the institutional process and the individuals involved. This scenario underscores the importance of adhering to moral principles rooted in duty and respect, regardless of intentions or perceived consequences.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor (2002). Cambridge University Press.
• Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Slote, M. (2010). Morality, Rationality, and Human Needs. Oxford University Press.
• Velasquez, M., Andre, T., Shanks, N., & Meyer, M. (2015). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
• Kuhse, H., & Singer, P. (2013). A Companion to Bioethics. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Beckwith, L. (2007). Moral Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
• Rachels, J. (2007). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Ford, R. (2017). Ethics and the Law. Routledge.
• Resnik, D. B. (2011). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press.
• Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2010). Moral Issues in Business. Cengage Learning.