CSCI 415 Ethics, Law and Cybersecurity

Chapter 2 Quiz

Chapter 2 – Quiz 2

Instructions:  There are four (3) topic areas listed below that are designed to measure your knowledge level specific to learning outcome (LO 2) shown in your course syllabus. In most cases the topic area has several components. Each must be addressed to properly satisfy requirements.

Pay attention to what you are being asked to do (see Grading Rubric below). For example, to describe does not mean to list, but to tell about or illustrate in more than two or three sentences, providing appropriate arguments for your responses using theories discussed in our text.  Be sure to address all parts of the topic question as most have multiple parts. A verifiable current event (less than 4 years old) relevant to at least one of the topics you respond to is a fundamental component of your quiz as well.  You cannot use information from the text book or any book/article by the author of the text book as a current event.  Make sure that your reference has a date of publication.  For each chapter quiz and final quiz you are required to find and include at least one reference and reference citation to a current event less than 4 years old (a reference with no date (n.d.) is not acceptable) in answer to at least one question.  This requires a reference citation in the text of your answer and a reference at the end of the question to which the reference applies.  You must include some information obtained from the reference in your answer.  The references must be found on the internet and you must include a URL in your reference so that the reference can be verified. 

1. How do religion, law, and philosophy each provide different grounds for justifying a moral principle?  How can each perspective be applied in analyzing the moral principle “Stealing is wrong”?  Be sure to elaborate and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your position. (knowledge)
2. Do you feel that any of the four traditional ethical theories examined in chapter two are adequate to handle moral issues that arise as a result of cybertechnology?  Is a brand-new ethical theory needed, as some have argued, for the Internet age; or can a comprehensive, integrated theory, such as the one proposed by James Moor (i.e., his theory of “just consequentialism”) be used successfully to resolve moral issues involving cybertechnology?  Explain your answer. Be sure to elaborate and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your position. (comprehension)

3. Consider a case in which the United States government, with the approval of the majority of Americans, decides to round up all Arab-Americans and relocate them into internment camps.  Imagine that you have a friend who is an American citizen of Arab descent.  She asks you to protect her from the authorities.  You have known this person all of your life, and you are convinced that she is a loyal American.  You agree to hide her on the third floor of your house.  A United States federal agent knocks on your door and asks if you know the whereabouts of the person you are hiding.  How would you respond to that agent?  You now face a genuine moral dilemma because you cannot both keep your promise to your friend and tell the truth to the federal agent.  Initially, your gut reaction might suggest that the solution to your dilemma is really quite simple.  For example, you might believe that a far greater good will be served by lying to the federal agent than by breaking your promise to your friend.  However, to embrace the moral principle inherent in that line of reasoning is to fall back into utilitarianism.  We have already seen some of the difficulties that can result from trying to be a consistent and thoroughgoing utilitarian.  Could you consistently universalize a moral principle that states: “Whenever you must choose between telling the truth to authorities and breaking a promise to a friend, always honor your promise”?  Will that principal work in every case?  Will Ross’s theory help in this situation?  Explain your answer. Be sure to elaborate and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your position. (comprehension)