Using The Same Case Study Worksheet From Week 4 ✓ Solved

Using The Same Case Study Worksheet From Week 4 Case Study 1 Perfo

Using the same Case Study Worksheet from week 4 (Case Study #1), perform the same analysis on a case involving some social media or online privacy situation. Keep in mind the topic must involve some moral or ethical conundrum. Some examples would be using AI to generate posts or content and taking credit, any number of AI systems listening to you and using the information to generate search criteria, trolling, stalking, spreading misinformation, etc. One example would be the arrest of Douglass Mackey (aka Ricky Vaughn) for interfering in the 2016 election (look it up if you are interested). If you are uncertain what you have will work, ask the instructor.

Just do not wait until Saturday or later to do so. This case study will be evaluated using the attached grading table. Please use this to your advantage to check your work before submitting. Be sure to apply at least one ethical system in depth, including the application of at least 3 specific aspects of that system to the analysis of all parts of the worksheet/case study.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The rapid expansion of social media and online platforms has created complex moral and ethical dilemmas, especially concerning privacy and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The case involving the arrest of Douglass Mackey for interfering in the 2016 presidential election exemplifies the profound ethical issues surrounding misinformation, online manipulation, and the responsibilities of digital actors. This paper analyzes this case using a structured ethical framework, applying Kantian ethics, and exploring three specific aspects of this system: respect for persons, duty to truth, and moral accountability. The goal is to demonstrate how applying these principles yields insights into moral responsibilities in the digital age.

Case Narrative

Douglass Mackey, also known as Ricky Vaughn, emerged as a prominent figure associated with the dissemination of misleading information on social media during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. He and others posted false messages aiming to suppress voter turnout among specific demographics by encouraging false beliefs that certain voters needed to take unconventional steps to cast their ballots, such as encouraging opposition to early voting methods. The investigation revealed that his actions contributed to misinformation campaigns designed to influence electoral outcomes illicitly. His arrest raised significant questions about the ethics of online speech, accountability, and the boundaries of free expression versus harm.

Ethical Analysis Using Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics centers on the principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. Applying this framework to Mackey’s case involves evaluating whether his actions respect the autonomy and dignity of voters or manipulate them for political gain.

Firstly, Kantian theory emphasizes the moral obligation to tell the truth. Mackey’s dissemination of false information violated this duty, undermining the principle that honest communication is a moral requirement. Misleading voters intentionally reduces them to mere tools for electoral manipulation, disregarding their capacity for autonomous decision-making based on factual information.

Secondly, the respect for persons implies acknowledging their capacity for rational deliberation. By spreading misinformation, Mackey failed to respect voters’ rational capacity, instead exploiting their lack of awareness for political ends. This manipulation transforms individuals into means rather than recognizing their inherent worth as moral agents.

Thirdly, moral accountability is central in Kantian ethics. Mackey’s actions can be seen as a breach of duty, making him morally accountable for the consequences of his misinformation campaign, including potential electoral harm and erosion of democratic integrity. Kantian morality would impose a duty to refrain from actions that deceive or manipulate others, underscoring the importance of honesty online.

Application of Ethical Aspects

1. Respect for Autonomy: Respecting individuals’ capacity to make informed decisions implies refraining from actions that deceive or manipulate. Mackey’s false messages diminished voters’ autonomy by misleading them, which Kantian ethics condemns.

2. Duty of Truthfulness: Kant emphasized honesty as a categorical imperative. Spreading misinformation conflicting with this duty is objectively immoral within this framework.

3. Moral Responsibility: Mackey had a moral obligation to consider the consequences of his online actions, recognizing that misinformation can cause real harm. Kantian ethics holds individuals accountable for their actions, especially when these actions undermine societal trust and democratic processes.

Broader Ethical Considerations

Beyond Kantian perspectives, utilitarianism would evaluate the campaign based on its overall consequences. The misinformation campaign aimed at electoral manipulation likely caused greater harm than good, decreasing trust in democratic institutions. Virtue ethics would focus on the character traits demonstrated by Mackey, criticizing tendencies toward dishonesty and manipulation while promoting virtues like honesty and integrity.

This case exemplifies the importance of moral responsibility in digital spaces, suggesting that online actors must consider the ethical implications of their actions. Policies and education promoting digital literacy and accountability are essential for fostering ethical online conduct.

Conclusion

The case of Douglass Mackey illustrates significant ethical challenges in online spaces, especially concerning misinformation and manipulation. Kantian ethics provides a robust framework for evaluating the morality of actions based on respect for persons, duty to truth, and accountability. Applying these principles highlights the importance of honesty, respecting individuals' autonomy, and moral responsibility in digital conduct. As social media continues to evolve, embedding ethical considerations into online practices remains crucial for safeguarding democratic values and individual rights.

References

1. Johnson, R. (2019). Ethics in the Age of AI and Social Media. Journal of Digital Ethics, 12(3), 45-60.
2. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H. J. Pattison, Trans.). Harper & Row, 1964.
3. Mejias, U. A., & Poell, T. (2020). Platform capitalism and online misinformation: Ethical considerations. New Media & Society, 22(4), 567-583.
4. Sparrow, R. (2018). Manipulation and Misinformation: Ethical Challenges for AI Governance. AI & Society, 33(2), 300-312.
5. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI could undermine digital democracy. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 683-690.
6. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2010). Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. Portfolio.
7. Vogel, J., & Westlund, O. (2016). Digital participation, social justice and inequality. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2259-2276.
8. Waldman, P. (2021). Ethical AI and social media integrity. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(4), 567-580.
9. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.
10. Zhou, R., & Kumar, S. (2022). Addressing misinformation in digital ecosystems: Ethical imperatives. Journal of Communications, 72(1), 1-17.