You Are An Expert Security Software Programmer Who Works In

You Are An Expert Security Software Programmer Who Works In Top Secret

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. It happens that this very same group of 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 -- i.e., 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 adhere strictly to duty ethics (referred to as a “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?).

Week 1: What would a strict deontologist do? Why? To whom or to what is your duty? This is not an easy question...but it is also what makes duty ethics so much fun!

Week 2: What would Immanuel Kant's “Categorical Imperative” suggest you do here? In this situation, would duty ethics be at odds with the thinking of Immanuel Kant? Explain. minimum of 3 references and respective citations within the body of your content. 1 reference from the course and 2 scholarly peer reviewed references with citations.

Paper For Above instruction

Under a strict deontological framework, the immediate obligation is to adhere to the duty not to intervene in government decisions beyond one’s programming responsibilities. As a top-secret software programmer sworn to remain silent about the programs and strictly to perform only within the scope of programming duties, a deontologist would focus solely on following this duty, regardless of consequence. The core principle of deontology, as articulated by Kantian ethics, emphasizes adherence to moral rules and duties without regard to consequences (Kant, 1785). Therefore, in this scenario, the programmer’s duty would be to resist any temptation or inclination to intervene, and instead maintain a strict adherence to the oath of programming responsibility, thereby refusing to alter, disable, or divert the missile trigger code.

This obligation aligns with Kant’s formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which directs individuals to act only according to maxims that could be universally willed as a moral law (Kant, 1785). Applying this principle, the programmer’s action should be guided by a maxim: “Always perform only the programming duties assigned, without interference.” This maxim, if universalized, entails that all programmers in similar situations should adhere strictly to their programming duties, regardless of potential human or moral considerations. Such adherence guarantees consistency, moral clarity, and respects the moral integrity of the programmer’s role. The duty, in this case, is owed primarily to oneself—upholding professional integrity—and ultimately to the moral law itself, which mandates acting in accordance with moral rules that respect human rights and the dignity of individuals (O’Neill, 1995).

However, a potential conflict arises between strict duty adherence and consequentialist considerations—namely, the potential catastrophic consequences of enabling a nuclear war. While deontology forbids acting in a way that violates one's duties, the consequences of inaction may result in massive loss of life and destruction. This apparent conflict is apparent in Kantian ethics, which insists that moral duties must be followed unconditionally; yet, critics argue that Kantian ethics might overlook situations where obeying duty results in severe harm (Wood, 2008). Still, Kant himself emphasized the importance of acting from duty, not from consequences, and maintaining the moral integrity of one’s actions even amidst dire circumstances (Kant, 1785).

In conclusion, a deontologist, guided by Kant’s principles, would likely refuse to intervene in the missile launch code, emphasizing adherence to duties bound by moral rules rather than outcomes. Although this stance might seem at odds with utilitarian or consequentialist reasoning, Kantian ethics firmly advocates respecting moral duties as the foundation of moral action. This approach underscores the importance of moral consistency and integrity, even when faced with catastrophic potential outcomes. Nevertheless, it raises ethical debates about whether rigid rule-following can adequately address complex real-world dilemmas where moral duties conflict with potential consequences.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• O’Neill, Onora. (1995). Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructivist Account. Cambridge University Press.
• Wood, A. W. (2008). Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press.