Initial Post Instructions: The Principle Of Utility Involves

Initial Post Instructions The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of decisions

The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of disaster. Utilitarian decisions are directed toward outcomes—that is, the consequences of decisions. We need to look at results. We first look at the actual results of an action. We judge if it was the best possible result. We can judge the actual results in comparison to other results that reasonably could be said to have been possible. If we do not yet have the actual results of an action, we do not know if it is moral or not. We can talk hypothetically about what might happen, and then what that would show about the morality of an action. However, if we do not know what the action had as its consequences, we cannot yet say if it is moral or not.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma posed by the use of a new social media app that claims to show users how they will look at 10 years old raises significant questions about privacy, morality, and legal rights. The core concern is whether utilizing the app is ethically justifiable based on the potential consequences and underlying data-sharing practices. Applying utilitarian and social contract theories provides a comprehensive approach to analyzing whether one should use the app, especially given the claims made by friends John Doe and Jane Doe concerning data privacy and security concerns.

The utilitarian perspective emphasizes maximizing happiness and minimizing harm. If the app's use results in personal happiness—such as entertainment, curiosity satisfaction, or social engagement—then in principle, it could be considered morally permissible. However, this happiness must be balanced against potential harms, including privacy violations and misuse of biometric data. John Doe’s assertion that the app will possess biometric facial data raises privacy concerns, especially if the data is stored or used without explicit consent. Under utilitarianism, if the misuse or breach of such data leads to significant harm—like identity theft or personal distress—the overall happiness diminishes. Conversely, if the app's data collection is transparent, secure, and used ethically, utilitarian calculus might favor usage, given the personal enjoyment and entertainment derived.

Jane Doe’s claim that the app shares facial data with government security agencies introduces further ethical considerations. If the sharing leads to increased security and potentially prevents harm, such as terrorist activity, utilitarianism might support using the app, assuming the security benefits outweigh privacy infringements. Nonetheless, on the downside, such data sharing could lead to misuse or government overreach, chilling effects on privacy rights, and possible abuses of authority—potentially causing more societal harm than good.

From a social contract standpoint, the decision hinges on the accepted rights, duties, and norms within society. Social contract theory emphasizes respecting individuals' rights and adhering to mutually agreed-upon rules. If users and society agree to uphold strict privacy standards and consent specifically to data collection and sharing, using the app could be justified within this framework. However, if the app's practices violate reasonable expectations of privacy or are implemented without explicit informed consent, it breaches the social contract, and using it would be ethically improper.

The role of the Fourth Amendment in this context is crucial. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, implicitly safeguarding privacy from unwarranted government intrusion. If the app’s data sharing with government agencies occurs without proper legal warrants or user consent, it potentially infringes on Fourth Amendment rights—challenging its legality and ethical permissibility. Even if the app operates legally, concerns about privacy invasion remain if data is collected, stored, or shared in ways that undermine constitutional protections. Therefore, from a legal and constitutional perspective, using such an app without explicit safeguards may be ethically questionable.

In conclusion, whether to use the app depends heavily on the assumptions about data security, privacy protections, and the societal consensus on surveillance and individual rights. From a utilitarian perspective, if the happiness gained by entertainment outweighs the potential harms of privacy breaches and misuse of biometric data, then using the app might be justified. Conversely, if the privacy risks and potential for government overreach cause significant societal harm, utilitarianism would favor avoiding its use. From a social contract perspective, respecting individual rights and societal norms suggests that transparency, consent, and legal protections are essential, and if these are not met, using the app would be ethically wrong. Lastly, respecting Fourth Amendment protections emphasizes caution against data sharing that bypasses legal safeguards, rendering the use of such an app ethically and legally questionable without proper legal protections.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Guston, D. H. (2014). Contextualizing the ethical debate over facial recognition technology. Ethics & Information Technology, 16(4), 269-281.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). Harper & Brothers, 1873.
• Miller, D. (2017). Privacy and the Law: What's Next? Harvard Law Review, 130(6), 1794-1804.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press.
• United States Constitution. Amendments IV and XIV.
• Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220.
• Westin, A. F. (2003). Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 431-436.
• Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the Data Will Be Anonymous”: Privacy, Anonymous Data, and Re-identification. International Journal of Communication, 4, 748–769.