Author: dsolo008

6.4. Case Analysis on Cyberconflict 

Is the cyberwar between Israel and Iran a just war? 

In the articles “The cyber war between Israel and Iran is heating up” and “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across the country” the authors describe the current cyber war between Israel and Iran and the impact the constant attacks are having on everyone involved. The cyber-attacks are not occurring as last resort or in order to prevent harm from happening but rather affecting the citizens’ daily lives and are used as retaliation. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the contractarian ethical theory shows us that cyberwars when regulated are just. Cyberwars and their attacks when used as a last resort or to protect a nation or state are just based on the contractarian theory since more people are benefitted the use of cyberwar as a defense mechanism. In the case of the cyber war between Israel and Iran, due to their unnecessary and excessive attacks as retaliation, they would not be considered just. 

In the text “Can There Be a Just Cyber War,” Michael Boylan explains the central concepts regarding how war techniques have changed due to advances in technology and the issues that are arising in determining whether or not cyber ware attacks are just and if so, how will they be determined. Boylan describes the shift in the way wars and attacks have been justified and the issue that cyber-attacks are now bringing. He looks at the issue behind what types of cyber action are sufficient enough to justify a response and what type of response. An issue that Boylan discusses in the text, is the lack of accountability for cyber-attacks and the impact that those attacks can have on nations, especially since major infrastructures that allow countries to run are connected to the internet and can be targeted. 

Based on the contractarian theory, it would be ethical and justifiable for nations to engage in cyber-attacks during a cyber war in a responsive and preventative way. The contractarian theory claims that for an action to be ethical and justifiable, everyone would need to be better off with the social contract in place compared to if it were not in place together. The contractarian perspective views actions and decisions as ethical, as long as everyone who has agreed to the social contract will benefit and be better off in life regardless of where or who they may end up in life. Most nations agree to the social contract of having militaries and the agreement of having wars. Everyone is safe and benefits from having some type of military to protect them against other nations and attacks. Boyland brings up the issue of cyber-attacks being sponsored by nation-states against other nations and whether those actions are means enough to enter a cyber war. Based on this ethical theory all nations would benefit more from being able to defend themselves against other nations’ cyber-attacks by retaliating with their own cyber-attacks, creating a cyber-war. This would be considered ethical based on this theory because any individual in any nation would benefit more from being able to defend themselves rather than the consequences that would result if they did not.  

Cyber-attacks as a preventative measure would also be considered ethical based on this theory. Boylan uses the Stuxnet attack against Iran as an example in his text. While it cannot be verified, a nation created this attack in order to spy and ultimately take control of Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment program centrifuges and cause them to spin themselves to failure. The intended reason for this attack was to prevent or delay Iran from creating nuclear weapons and the possible damage they could do. This action would be considered just because if there was no social contract allowing nations to use cyber-attacks to defend and prevent attacks, then in this situation Iran could have created nuclear weapons and used them to attack and possibly kill many people. This cyber-attack was used as a preventative measure and regardless of where someone is, more people are safe by that attack being deployed than if nothing at all was done. 

In the text “An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare,” Mariarosario Taddeo explains the central concepts behind the ethical issue behind transferring traditional war ethics over to cyber warfare. She explains the concepts behind “war as a last resort” and better than harm” and how they have been applied to military or state attacks and in justifying war. Taddeo brings up the issues that arise when trying to simply apply the same ethical theories to cyber-attacks and cyber-war. While there is some overlap between the two, Taddeo brings attention to the gray areas in the cyber world that do not easily fit into the previously established concepts. She also brings up two sets of moral principles that assist in determining the justification for cyber-attacks. One of the sets is a list of principles to help regulate cyber warfare which is: 1. CW ought to be waged only against those entities that endanger or disrupt the well-being of the Infosphere, 2. CW ought to be waged to preserve the well-being of the Infosphere., and 3. CW ought not to be waged to promote the well-being of the Infosphere. 

Based on the contractarian theory, it would be most ethical to follow the “war as last resort” and “more good than harm” when considering cyber-attacks and cyber warfare. Most people do not want to go to war, so leaving war as a last resort allows everyone regardless of their position to benefit from not being subject to participate and receive the consequences of war declared whenever. War tends to cause harm to all parties involved, so agreeing to use war as a last resort would benefit everyone involved. For “more good than harm” can be seen as the ethical decision and not the most ethical decision based on the situation from a contractarian theory. In the case of the Stuxnet attack, releasing a worm, collecting data, and destroying computers were all done with the intention to stop or delay Iran’s plan in developing nuclear weapons. In this case, more people would be helped and protected by the intervention of the worm. And from a contractarian perspective, allowing for interventions in these situations means overall millions of people will be at less of a risk if nations or states just started creating nuclear weapons without others trying to intervene and stop them. 

Based on the contractarian theory, everyone involved should benefit more from having social contracts than not having them at all which would make following the list of principles to help regulate cyber warfare the most ethical decision. Cyber-attacks and the decision to engage in a cyber war bring on many challenges that we have not had to deal with before. The principles on how to regulate cyber warfare benefit everyone by providing some type of structure and helping nations all around better protect themselves and know when to act. The following principles: 1. CW ought to be waged only against those entities that endanger or disrupt the well-being of the Infosphere, 2. CW ought to be waged to preserve the well-being of the Infosphere., and 3. CW ought not to be waged to promote the well-being of the Infosphere is in a sense a blend of “war as a last resort” and “more good than harm” for cyber warfare. Based on contractarianism, by implementing these principles, everyone will benefit more from the regulations and avoid unnecessary harm or wars of any type. 

In conclusion, based on the contractarian theory, for an action to be considered ethical or just, all those involved in the social agreement must benefit more from having it in place than from it not being in place. Cyberwar is very similar to traditional war in that it is used as a means to defend a nation or state. Cyberware and cyberattacks are ethical and just when regulations like the ones Taddeo discussed limit them. Cyber-attacks should be used as a last resort defense and should only be used when their outcome will benefit more people rather than constantly deploying these attacks as Israel and Iran have. Everyone will benefit from being able to use cyber-attacks as a means of protection as a last resort. Also, everyone will benefit by justifying the deployment of cyber-attacks in order to prevent severe harm from occurring. By having this social contract, everyone will be able to deploy some type of cyber protection in case they need to protect their citizens or prevent harm. 

5.4. Case Analysis on Professional Ethics 

Did Manning act out of loyalty to the United States when she released the footage in the video? Do her actions constitute a moral or immoral case of whistleblowing? 

In the video “Collateral Murder?” Julian Assange discussed the video that Chelsea manning released of a Baghdad airstrike that presented ethical issues within our military warfare. Manning felt an obligation to the citizens of her nation to become aware of how light the execution procedures were in war but also how disassociated the military soldiers were when killing. The videos that were released depicted not only the language used during the killing but also the disassociation they had and even a lack of sympathy for the children, The video also questioned the lack of strict procedures when determining if a shooter can execute killings. She felt this was an issue that only those involved saw and needed to be shown to the rest of the country as they ultimately would suffer any consequences as a nation. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the deontological theory shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing. 

In the text “Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty,” Wim Vandekerckhove explains the central concepts behind the ethics of whistleblowing and loyalty to a company. The main concept that Vandekerckhove discusses is how loyalty is measured and to what extent loyalty reaches between employees and employers. He looks at what type and how much loyalty is expected from employees in order for society as a whole to grow. Another main concept that Vandekerckhove discusses is the idea that whistleblowing is actually a way for employees to be loyal to their companies. He discusses the idea that being loyal, and whistleblowing may actually be the same thing, rather than whistleblowing meaning you have betrayed your company. 

 Based on the deontological theory, the ethical or correct thing for employees to do is to whistle blow within the company, like institutional whistleblowing. The deontological theory states that the ethical choice to make is one that ethical decision would be one that by itself is a good actor rather than the outcome of that action being good. Vandekerckhove explains that a loyal employee too would want to see the company they work for continue to grow and do right, so by whistleblowing internally to the company, they would in fact be acting loyal by helping them stay on a prosperous route. From a deontological perspective, one would be doing the ethical action by saying something if they know or see something that is wrong. The action that it will bring, either good or bad, should not prevent the employee from doing a good thing and saying something. The employee would actually be acting unethically if they chose to not say anything at all because the act of staying silent would be unethical on its own. Another concept that Vandekerckhove discusses is to what extent employees should feel and be loyal to the companies they work for. He explains that it should be a mutual loyalty between the two and while loyalty is needed, complete tolerance should not be given to employers. If we look at it from a deontological perspective, it would not be ethical to give complete tolerance to a company that is doing incorrect things just because being loyal is a good thing. Employees should not give their complete loyalty to a company if it means overlooking the wrongs that are being committed. The ethical decision would be for employees to have an equal level of loyalty to their employers as they are proving a job, but to also say something when they see something wrong. Honesty can help correct mistakes and in companies can save them millions of dollars as well as their reputation. Regardless of the outcome, employees need to remember that it is most ethically correct to do good actions because they are good and not because they will result in good things later on. Choosing to stay silent because an employee believes that it will result in a worthy demonstration of loyalty is indeed unethical because they made the decision to stay silent and not speak up when something was wrong. 

 In the text “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace,” Julinna Oxley and D. E. Wittkower explain the central concepts behind the ethics of what it means to be loyal to a company, how loyalty is determined, and the conflict of whether or not whistleblowing is an act of loyalty or betrayal. Both Oxley and Wittkower explain how loyalty to a company cannot be expected and demanded. Employees must form relationships with co-workers and the company’s missions and values in order to feel a sense of loyalty. They then begin to discuss that loyalty can be determined by not only the relationships that employees have with one another but also by how aligned their values and missions are. Finally, Oxley and Wittkower explain that whistleblowing is actually a demonstration of care and loyalty to not only their co-workers but the company as well since they are doing so with the intention to either protect them or help them out by bringing attention to an issue. 

Based on the deontological theory, the ethical or correct thing for employees to do is act in ways that demonstrate that they care for the relationships they have at work with co-workers and the company made of all the workers. The deontological theory claims that the ethical decision is the one that is morally correct regardless of the outcome. We should do good things because they are good and not because of what they will cause. On the contrary, we should not do bad actions just because they will result in good consequences since a bad action was still committed. Oxley and Wittkower explain that employees develop loyalty to co-workers and companies based on the relationships and connections they make. This sense of loyalty can then be justification for whistleblowing. They explain that whistleblowing would indeed be a demonstration of loyalty due to it either protecting one of their co-workers or even helping the company as a whole by bringing attention to an issue. Their explanations of why and how employees show loyalty to companies as well as why they feel the need to whistle blow would not be considered ethical based on the deontological theory. From this ethical perspective, one does good things because they are good. No reason or future positive reaction is needed to justify an individual doing a good thing. In this case, Oxley and Wittkower state that there must be some type of connection or relationship for employees to have any type of loyalty towards their companies. They also state that employees whistle blow because they care about their co-workers and the overall company. From a deontological perspective, employees should have a sense of loyalty because being loyal is the right thing to do when you work somewhere (not to be confused with complete tolerance) and employees and people, in general, should speak up and whistle blow if something is wrong because it is the right thing to do and not because of who it can benefit. Whistleblowing only when a relationship or connection is there would be conditional, making it unethical. 

In conclusion, based on the deontological theory, it is ethically correct for individuals to speak out and whistle blow when they feel something is wrong and attention needs to be brought to an issue. In Manning’s case, she felt the military was acting unethically when it came to executing killing and even though she had obligations to the United States Military, she knew the right thing to do regardless of the consequences was to release that video. In the case of Oxley and Wittkower, from a deontological perspective, their explanation as to why employees are loyal and whistle blow would not be ethical. Employees should have some degree of loyalty because it is the right thing to do. Speaking out or whistleblowing, when something is wrong, should not be conditional on the relationships we have with co-workers or our loyalty. The ethical decision should always be to do the right thing, regardless of the outcome, and not done only in certain situations. 

3.4. Case Analysis on CSR 

Who did the Equifax breach harm? How? Why was this harm morally bad? 

Ron Lieber presents the ethical issues that arise with the Equifax breach that occurred and who was harmed by it in “Why the Equifax Breach Stings So Bad – The New York Times.” Lieber explains how not only are these big companies not being held accountable for the data that was stolen but he also explains how little regard the companies have for the acts that have occurred. He explains how everyone who does not have all the money at their disposal relies on their credit for big transactions and how these big companies seem to not take great care in protecting the users’ data that is collected to populate their scores. Lieber also brings up the ethical concern behind users not even having the option to opt-out of having their data and information collected and sent to these big credit companies who do not seem to prioritize their security. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the consequentialism theory shows us that the Equifax breach harmed users who use credit, hold a job, or make payments by not giving the users the option to determine if their information was collected and by not properly securing or informing users that their information was leaked, making this process morally wrong. 

In the text “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” Milton Friedman explains the central concept of whether or not businesses have an ethical responsibility to incorporate social concerns into their companies. Friedman focuses on what should be the focus of a business and also explains that social concerns are an individual’s responsibility, not a business’s responsibility. He also makes the assumption that individuals will contribute their personal money to helping social issues, which makes it unnecessary to hold businesses responsible for doing so. Friedman explains that businesses should only have to focus on making the most profit and hold no responsibility for social concerns. Concerns brought up in his text are if businesses and companies should have some social responsibility and if left solely to individuals, will society benefit as much? 

Based on the consequentialism theory, it is not ethically correct for companies to not have any social responsibilities integrated into their businesses. The consequentialism theory states that the ethical choice to make is the one that brings “the greater good.” In the case of Friedman, his statements would be ethically incorrect. The amount of individual stockholders that would profit from businesses solely focusing on making more profit would be less than the amount of people and causes that would benefit if companies took on social concerns and responsibilities. On the contrary, it would be most ethical to hold businesses responsible for improving and helping social concerns because on top of businesses helping, individual stockholders could also donate and help with their personal time and money which would result if more individuals and causes benefiting. Another reason why Friedman’s view that companies should solely focus on making the most profit would be unethical is because by eliminating a social concern or responsibilities, companies will not consider who or what gets negatively impacted to generate the most profit for the stockholders. From the consequentialist perspective, more individuals would suffer in order to provide a small amount of individuals a greater profit. Having businesses take into consideration social concerns would provide “the greater good” because society would benefit, stockholders would still receive profit, their companies would be generating wealth and helping the society, and the overall company would be gaining a better reputation which would lead to more supporters and customers. 

Friedman also makes the claim that there is no need for businesses to take any responsibility for social concerns because when stockholders receive more profit, they will donate and give their personal time to social concerns they want to. The issue with this statement is that he assumes every stockholder will want to contribute. Regulations and laws help keep individuals from being able to take and take for their own profit. This can be seen by laws against monopoly and laws to preserve planet earth. These types of laws indicate that not everyone will always want to help others, so by leaving the responsibility simply to individuals the amount of social concerns that will be helped is much smaller than if collectively businesses took on social responsibilities. A greater good will be seen if businesses take on social responsibilities, making Friedman’s theory that businesses should simply focus on making the most profit unethical. 

In the text “Changing the Social Contract: A Role for Business,” Melvin Anshen explains that ultimately businesses are an organ of society in the way that they serve as a means to convert our raw materials into goods and services that will ultimately improve everyone’s life. He speaks about the idea that businesses need to change and evolve alongside society and times in order to provide the maximum amount of benefits for both the businesses and all of society. Anshen explains that businesses and society share a social contract with one another that allows for each party to gain. In order for societies and businesses to continue to grow and profit for everyone, Anshen claims that there need to be some rules in place to set boundaries and that businesses need to adapt to society and technological changes to prevent events such as riots and protests to align both party’s interests. 

Based on the consequentialism theory, Anshen is correct in that it would be most ethical for businesses to invest and take into consideration changes and issues that are occurring in society in order to integrate addressing those issues into their companies. The consequentialism theory looks at what action will be being “the greater good” and in this case, taking an initiative approach and considering society’s needs would bring the most benefits to everyone. By taking the approach described by Anshen, businesses would avoid catastrophic events such as riots and protests that would eventually come about if society’s needs were not met by businesses. While it is not expected for businesses to fix and address every social concern, they should make an effort to hear out what social concerns are present and in what way they can do their part to be socially aware. Being that businesses are an organ of society; they need to take into consideration how they impact society even if it means doing nothing at all. From a consequential perspective, the most ethical action is the one that benefits the most amount of people. Even though change is hard to adapt to and many people resist it, for businesses to continue to organically grow and benefit society they need to take into consideration where we are in society and make environmental and social issues matter to the company as well. If companies, choose to ignore social and environmental issues more people will suffer and from a consequential perspective, this action would not be ethically correct. By not incorporating social and environmental needs, companies will damage their reputation, hinder their employees and their trust in the company since their concerns are not being validated and ultimately it might cause society to perform acts sucks as riots and protests in order to make companies care about their social concerns. This outcome will bring “the greater good” to fewer people and when riots and protests are involved, many times laws are forcibly implemented. At least, by companies choosing to listen to society’s needs, they will have the flexibility to make changes that not only best benefit and help certain social and environmental needs and concerns, but can also leverage ways to best benefit their company at the same time. This way both parties are most benefitted, and this action would result in “the greater good.” 

In conclusion, based on the consequentialism theory, it is not ethically correct for companies to solely focus on how they can create the most profit without considering social needs and concerns. Businesses are meant to assist society in growing and not hinder society at the expense of a few. Based on this ethical theory, it would be ethical for businesses to understand and incorporate social needs and concerns into their mission to optimize the amount of people that will benefit. The most ethical action would be the one that brings “the greater good” so solely believing that businesses only needs to focus on generating the most profit as Milton Friedman claims would be unethical. Melvin Anshen understood that businesses need to grow organically with society and that by working together and aligning their social responsibilities and concerns, the greatest amount of people would benefit this way. Businesses need to consider that working in a way that benefits the most amount of people is not only the most ethical approach, but it will also help create more trust for that company and a better reputation in the long run. 

2.4. Case Analysis on User Data 

 Should the United States adopt something like Europe’s new Privacy Laws? 

 Danny Palmer presents the ethical issues that arise with user data that is collected and if there should be regulation put in place in “What is GDRP? Everything you need to know about the new general data protection regulations.” Palmer explains how Europe has implemented the GDRP which not only gives the users more control over how their data and information is used, but it also holds companies accountable and responsible for violations. Palmer illustrates the importance of not only giving users the right to control how their information is used but also the importance of quickly notifying users when breaches have occurred. The GDRP brings back the importance of consent. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the deontology theory shows us that the United States should follow Europe’s lead because by not asking for consent for user data is untimely violating the user’s privacy. Based on deontology, doing something wrong, even for a good reason is still doing something wrong. 

In the text “But the data is already public: On the ethics of research in Facebook,” Michael Zimmer explains the central concept of the ethical concerns regarding collecting personal information from social media platforms for research, specifically in the “Taste, Ties, and Time” project that was conducted. Zimmer focuses on not only the project research itself and how it collected its data and published it, but he also looks at the overall ethical process and procedures that are expected when using personal information and data from social media platforms. Zimmer discussed whether it was ethically correct for the researcher to have collected the data in the way that they did and if they took the correct precautions when determining how and what was going to be published in order to protect the user’s privacy. He questions not only this specific research project but also the process and procedures that need to be followed when conducting any type of research project with the use of social media information and data. 

Based on the deontology theory, it is not ethically correct for the researchers to have collected the student’s information from the university itself and from Facebook. The deontology theory classifies actions are right and wrong based on the action itself and the reasoning behind it. In simpler words, do good things because they are good and not because you will get something out of doing them. The researchers of this project collected information and data belonging to a cohort of students from the university they attended as well as Facebook. The students themselves had no idea their information and data were being collected and consent for it to be released as data for the research was never obtained either. From the deontology perspective, the researchers were acting unethically by collecting the student’s data due to the fact that the students never agreed to any of it. The researchers themselves pulled personal information and data by violating the students’ privacy. Even if the students had agreed to data being collected from Facebook, they were never asked or informed about their data being collected and used for a third-party research project. Even if the data and information were collected for research purposes, there was a privacy violation. Violating the students’ trust and privacy in order to obtain data for a research project that did not benefit the students was unethical. From the deontology perspective, the researchers used the students as sources of data rather than respecting and treating them with the same dignity they expect in return from others. Looking at another perspective as to why this research process and execution is unethical based on the deontology theory is the intention behind how the data and information were protected. While the researchers claimed to have done their best in trying to protect the data, they chose to ignore taking certain steps to better protect the students’ data. The researchers knew they were not experts on data protection and chose to not consult a privacy expert. Based on deontology, the researchers were acting unethically by taking the easier route, rather than properly consulting an expert to guide them in better protecting the data. Violating an individual’s privacy and knowingly skipping steps to better protect that information is unethical regardless of the results that doing so could produce. 

 In the text “Considering the Ethics of Big Data Research: A Case of Twitter and ISIS/ISIL,” Elizabeth Buchanan explains the central concept of the ethics behind user data being collected and used and if user subjects are and should be considered the same as human subjects in regards to consent and rights. Buchanan begins by explaining two different sides to how data mining can be used. On one side certain algorithms can help terrorist groups target certain audiences in order to recruit and market their beliefs and on the other side the same data that is mined and algorithms can be used by law enforcement as a tool to identify groups or individuals that pose a threat to the nation’s safety. The question here is whether or not it is ethically okay to use mined user data regardless of which reason it is being used for. She also brings up the question if data subjects are and should be treated ethically the same way as human subjects. Is it ethically correct to not have to request consent and offer the same rights to data subjects since they themselves are not human subjects? 

Based on the deontology theory, it is not ethically correct for user data that has been mined to be used by third-party individuals or companies, regardless of the reason behind it. Looking at this from the deontology perspective, regardless of whether the data mined is being used for terrorist group recruitment or as a tool by law enforcement to better protect the people, a violation of privacy and individual rights is still occurring making this unethical. In the same way, law enforcement cannot just legally go through someone’s phone or home without proper process and consent from either the person in question or by a court, law enforcement should not be able to use user data for these purposes. While the reasoning maybe with good intentions a bad act is being committed which makes it unethical. Another reason why this action would be considered unethical based on deontology is that for algorithms to work, they heavily rely on discriminatory and stereotyping methods. In order to create algorithms, the bad act of stereotyping and discriminating would have to occur which would make this unethical. The other central concept that Buchanan explains in her writing is whether or not data subjects and being treated ethically the same as human subjects and if they even should be. Based on the deontological theory if no consent is being given to using the user’s data for research purposes, then that would be the same as stealing or taking without permission which would make it an unethical act. The issue with this is that not only are researchers taking and using user data without consent, but they are disregarding the individual and their rights altogether. By taking away the human factor from the equation, researchers are ignoring the user’s right to privacy and simply seeing the users as a resource and not taking them into consideration. This is unethical due to the initial violation of privacy by taking the data without consent but also because the individuals are not being regarded with respect and are seen as objects to help the research. Based on deontology, these are two bad acts occurring. 

In conclusion, based on the deontology theory, it is not ethically correct to use user data and information without the user’s consent regardless of the reason behind collecting and using it. Based on this ethical theory, it would be ethically correct for the United States to adopt something similar to Europe’s new Privacy Laws. In Zimmer’s case, user data was collected without consent and when the research project was published, the students’ identities were discovered within days. The users were never asked for consent or even informed how their information was being used, making it unethical. In Buchanan’s case, users’ privacy and consent were not considered when their data was used. Regardless of the reason for which the data was used, good or bad, there was a violation of user privacy. Violating someone’s privacy is untimely a bad action, making it unethical or wrong. Based on the deontology perspective, regardless of the outcome or reason, the individual users must be respected and valued enough to get consent before using their data. 

Ethics of Care Tool 

In Nnedi Okorafor’s short story “Mother of Invention,” Anwuli’s neighbors, family, and friends did not act in a caring way, recognizing their mutual interdependence and directed towards their mutual flourishing and instead the way they acted towards her followed by concerns of justice instead. Not even her family member who has a stronger and closer relationship with Anwuli showed any time of care renourishing ways towards her. The ethics of care theory considers the moral or most ethical thing to do, is to care for and nourish those closest to us, and what is left over, trickles down to our communities and those around us. 

If her neighbors, community, family and friends had thought about things through an ethics of care rather than an ethics of justice, their behaviors towards Anwuli would have been very different. The short story even begins with one of her neighbors just ignoring the fact that a woman who is very close to being due, does not even offer to help her carry the materials and just lets her struggle. Even if her neighbor did not have a close relationship with her, based on the ethics of care, the caring and nourishing thing to have done if it was possible and wouldn’t hurt him or those he loved, would have been to help her carry the material in. Her neighbors and community should have acted in a more caring and sympathetic way. Since it did not seem like she was close with her neighbors or community it is reasonable to understand why they were not as helpful but their behavior towards her was morally wrong. According to ethics of care, they should have been caring and sympathetic enough to not exclude her and talk about her whenever she went out. Her friends and especially family had a greater duty to be caring and nourishing towards her, especially during this time and yet they chose not to because what she had done was wrong and gave her a bad reputation. Her family should have been more supportive towards her even if it was in an emotional and verbal way rather than everyone distancing themselves from her and in a way putting the blame on her for the situation, she was in. Family and those we have a closer relationship with, according to the ethics of care, have a higher obligation to protect and care for those we have closer relationships with, which her family and friends did not seem to do. While we should treat everyone in a caring and protective way, those people who we have an interdependent relationship with are prioritized higher than those we do not. When looking at her neighbors and community’s behavior towards her, while their obligation to how they treated her was not as prioritized, they still should have acted in a way where both sides were maturating and flourishing. As in the pregnant woman gets sympathy and little help and the neighbors do the right thing. 

Anwuli’s fiancé’s behavior and treatment towards her were unethical based on the ethics of care. As his fiancé, he did not give her the proper respect by still being married. As the mother of his unborn child, he should have acted more supportive and caring. Even without that close relationship, completely abandoning someone after they get pregnant does not embody mutual flourishing since there will be guilt on one end and suffering and abandonment on the other. In this situation I can see why he chose to abandon their relationship, being that he probably had a stronger interdependence relationship with his wives and children and felt a greater obligation to stay with them but he should have still been supportive toward Anwuli and her pregnancy. 

Contractarian Tool 

 If I were to use a veil of ignorance to consider whether a society with cancer or one with DGD is fairer, I believe that a world with DGD would outweigh the benefits compared to a world with cancer. With cancer, there is no pattern for who or when someone gets it, and it is a painful death. Even if one beats cancer, one can still run into the possibility of having cancer again. Since DGD was a reaction to a drug that cured most forms of cancer, it can be traced back to determine who has or will have DGD. On the other hand, because DGD is inherited, those individuals who have it can choose to have children to prevent passing it down to future generations. 

If I were to not know who I would be in either society, I would prefer to be in the society that had the cure. While both diseases are horrible, at least with DGD you know in advance whether or not you have it. There is also the benefit that to some degree it can be controlled once you begin to drift away with the assistance of specific individuals who carry the scent. In a world without a cure, cancer is unpredictable and has no cure. It also can be a quick death or a long painful one. The biggest difference is uncertainty. Quarantine and sterilization are the main factors that influence my decision. Being to separate DGD people when they begin to drift not only protects everyone else but also provides a safe space for them, if in the retreat-like environment. This elongates their lives as well as protects them from self-harm. While I do not believe forced sterilization is ever okay, I do believe that the ability to prevent more people from having DGD can be done by not reproducing when one parent has DGD greatly influenced my decision. 

If Lynn did not know any of the factors, I think she would have still wanted the Dilg center to be run by DGD people like her to exist. Regardless of what position she ends in life, it is better to have it than not have it. Dilg provides a place to help DGD sufferers control their disease, and these places also protect others from being hurt when they drift. Having DGD people run the facility is also a benefit not only for those being treated but also allows those who have DGD to help others like themselves. Dilg is far better than the other described facilities. 

With the contractarian’s reasoning, Lynn could help herself reconcile herself to the future she sees herself, where she accepts the responsibility of being in an undesirable position in a desirable social institution. With the contractarian’s reasoning, having Dilg around and being run by DGD people is good not only for DGD sufferers because they are given a safe space to handle their disease by people who are understanding since they too will end up in their place eventually, but it also provides safety for those who do not have DGD because when a DGD starts to drift they self-mutilate but can also harm those around them. Regardless of what side you end up on, a world with Dilg that is run by DGD people is better than a world without one. Due to that reasoning, Lynn benefits from Dilg being available which is why she should do her part given the position she ends up in life.