Instructions Must Be Original Work; No Outsiders

Instructions Must Be Original Work There Should Be No Outside Source

INSTRUCTIONS: MUST BE ORIGINAL WORK, THERE SHOULD BE NO OUTSIDE SOURCES. I AM LOOKING FOR ORIGINALITY, ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS COMPLETELY. NO MORE THAN 1 PAGE FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT. I CAN NOT STRESS ENOUGH ABOUT THE ORIGINALITY. I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE SAME PERSON FOR THE DURATION OF THIS CLASS. THIS IS ONLY FOR A DISCUSSION BOARD AND IS NOT AN ACTUAL PAPER Here is the question. You are an expert security software programmer who works in top secret for the national government of the country of Zulu. Late one afternoon, you come across an ominous email in which you learn that a small group of sinister government officials from Zulu plan - in exactly one hour - to unleash a nuclear attack on the neighboring country of Delta. This same group of four government officials is at odds with the neighboring country because of vastly different political and economic views. The bottom line? You are aware that if this missile is launched, the event will spawn World War III. Because you are the only person in the country of Zulu who has knowledge of the specific program code that will be used to trigger this devastating missile launch, you alone are the one individual who has the capacity to de-program the event -- that is, you could choose to cancel the launch altogether, or you could otherwise divert the nuclear missile to a neutral zone. In short, millions of innocent lives are now in your hands. However, you are a strict deontologist. On the day that you assumed your role as a top-secret national security programmer, you took a solemn oath swearing that you would never intervene in any government action, no matter its consequences. In short, your duty is limited to software programming -- and to programming alone. Indeed, your oath entails that you have an explicit duty never to make a decision that extends beyond your software programming role. Moreover, you are sworn never to discuss your programs with any other human being - except for communication that may be required with a limited number of superiors. On any given day, these few superiors of yours are easily found somewhere in the building. But alas! ... on this day, you are unable to find even one superior for advice (are they perhaps bound and gagged somewhere in this massive building?). What would a strict deontologist do? Why? To whom or to what is your duty? This is not an easy question...(which make philosophy so much fun)! What would Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative suggest you do here? In this situation, would a strict deontologist be at odds with the thinking of Immanuel Kant? Explain. PLEASE ONLY HANDSHAKE IF YOU ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE ME WITH ORIGINAL WORK, NO SOURCES AT ALL.

Paper For Above instruction

In this complex and morally fraught scenario, a strict deontologist's response is grounded in unwavering adherence to moral duties and principles, regardless of the consequences. As a software programmer sworn to only fulfill specific programming duties without intervening in political or military decisions, the deontologist would recognize that their moral obligation is strictly confined to maintaining the integrity of their code and honoring their oath not to participate in decisions beyond programming. This adherence signifies an absolute duty to obey the rules and roles explicitly established, even when witnessing potential catastrophic outcomes like a nuclear launch that could lead to widespread death and a possible world war.

According to deontological ethics, the morality of an action depends on whether it adheres to a moral rule or duty, not on its consequences. In this case, the programmer's duty is to remain silent about their knowledge, refrain from intervening, and uphold the oath to remain within their designated role. Their moral obligation is to "do no harm" indirectly through their actions—that is, to avoid making decisions outside their remit. Therefore, even when faced with the knowledge that a launch could annihilate thousands, the deontologist would do nothing to interfere, because their moral duty is to obey their oath and focus solely on the programming role.

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative furthers this perspective by emphasizing that individuals must act according to maxims that can be universally willed and that treat humanity, whether as an end or a means, with intrinsic dignity. Applying Kant's framework, the programmer should consider whether acting to deprogram or divert the missile could be universalized—that is, if everyone in a similar position would act similarly—and whether such action respects the moral dignity of all involved. Kant might argue that if the programmer were to intervene, they would be acting from a maxim suggesting they have a duty to decide moral issues outside their designated role, thereby undermining the principle of moral consistency and autonomy.

However, a potential tension exists here: Kant’s strict universality principle might suggest that always obeying one's duty, as defined by the oath, could conflict with the moral imperative to prevent mass murder. If the programmer's duty is to only code and not interfere, but the act of not intervening results in catastrophe, then the act of obedience conflicts with Kant's moral ideal of acting ethically in accordance with universalizable maxims that respect human dignity and prevent harm.

Despite this, Kant’s philosophy would generally uphold the importance of duty over consequence, suggesting the programmer should adhere strictly to their oath, refraining from intervention. From this perspective, a strict deontologist and Kant’s ethical theory may align, emphasizing the moral significance of duty and role-based obligations over consequentialist considerations. Nonetheless, critics argue that this rigid interpretation can produce moral conflicts in extreme situations, like the present one, where inaction leads to devastation. This highlights a key debate in deontological ethics about whether moral duties are absolute or can be overridden by moral intuition or circumstances.

Ultimately, both a strict deontologist and Kant would likely agree that the programmer's duty is to refrain from any action outside their role, even at the cost of personal moral despair. The emphasis remains on duty for duty's sake, reinforcing that morality is rooted in adherence to rules and principles rather than outcomes. This case exemplifies the tension between moral duty and the moral imperative to minimize harm, illustrating the nuanced challenges faced by deontologists and Kantian ethics in real-world dilemmas.

References

All citations are omitted as per the instruction to avoid outside sources and to ensure original work.