Cybersecurity Ethics
This course examines ethical issues relevant to ethics for cybersecurity professionals, including privacy, professional code of conduct, practical conflicts between engineering ethics and business practices, individual and corporate social responsibility, ethical hacking, information warfare, and cyberwarfare. Students will gain a broad understanding of central issues in cyberethics and the ways that fundamental ethical theories relate to these core issues.
Course Material
This course was somewhat difficult for me, because I am not the best writer, and certainly not fast at it. However I still really liked the class, and wish I took it over a normal semester, I was getting very anxious about this class at the beginning and was considering withdrawing from the class. This class has helped me understand my own moral reasoning a bit better and has definitely changed how I view the decisions and actions of people with power, trust, and loyalty.
I was generally surprised by how much Kantiansm resonated with me. I have always believed in second chances and personal growth and change. Kantian, out of the ethical tools I unlocked, seemed to be one that support these ideas. The idea is that each person is capable of being a ration moral being, which gives them their intrinsic value. This idea that each person has value, allows you to see past flaws and accept people and their mistakes. This way of thinking makes it seems like Kantians look out for the little guy and helps people no matter what. I hope I can remember Kantianism whenever I start working in Cybersecurity.
The ethical tool Utilitarianism/Consequentialism seems the weakest of the ethical-moral reasoning because it seems like any action can be reasoned as a good action through it. This is the moral reasoning behind a god, in order to have this sort of reasoning you have to picture yourself out of society similar to contractarianism, but with the “greater good” part about consequentialism seems subjective to the individual. This way of reasoning I can’t find a way for someone to be completely unbiased in these situations. I probably did not fully grasp the idea behind Consequentialism because it seems to me that this moral reasoning can be used to justify any act, regardless of its outcome. The moment someone disagrees with the statement, then it is all about matters of opinion. I guess I can’t see this moral reasoning being useful outside of a vacuum or through experiments. This moral reasoning seems to be the one most people use in order to absolve themselves from the bad they are doing. I think I will be questioning everyone who does stuff for the “greater good” to make sure what they are doing is for the greater good.
I really did enjoy the short story that was a part of the ethical tool, Understand by Ted Chiang. I was really intrigued by the topic presented in the reading. While I was reading, the story and talking points were very reminiscent of a movie I watched recently, and I was somewhat right because the movie Arrival is based on one of Ted Chiangs short stories, it is really good.
Contractarianism was a very difficult one for me to understand, the idea that well all act in self-interest and the reason we why help each other is to benefit ourselves. I looked this one up multiple times and I got definitions where I didn’t know half the words in the definition meant. This seems like strong moral reasoning, but I can’t stop thinking about it in the same sense as Care ethics. The ethical tool described pulling yourself out of society, and making a social contract without knowing your place in the world. This would mean almost everyone would choose a contract where the difference in inequality is the smallest because they don’t want to screw themselves once they “return” to society, this feels like just a convoluted way of saying “putting yourself in their shoes.”
I forget the reading but for Module 5, one of the readings brings up the idea of rational loyalty, and I really like that idea. It stops individual loyalty to people within organizations and instead loyalty to what the company is trying to do. I think this works well with contractarianism within careers and organizations.
For my last section, I am deviating from the prompt and assignment, but one thing I believe is that no one moral reasoning can be defined that covers everything. I don’t think there is such a thing. As I am writing this paper, I realized how much Kantian resonated with me and how much I hate utilitarianism, but the more I think about it the more I am torn. These ethical moral reasonings seem to be trying to paint things as black and white, and I hate that type of thinking. I want to support Kantianism but, if I were alive back in 1940 and Hitler was caught, I would want to see that man dead out for the greater good, and that is Utilitarianism, which I feel strongly against.