Question

After WikiLeaks released thousands of confidential U.S. government diplomatic and military documents on the Web, hackers conducted a denial-of-service attack on the WikiLeaks website. On the other hand, when major credit card companies stopped processing donation to WikiLeaks, other hackers attacked the credit card companies.

Do you think that it is justifiable for each of the above action? Please justify your answer with arguments based on two workable ethical theories. i.e. Kantianism, Utilitarianism (Act and Rule), Social Contract, and Virtue

Answer 1

It is not justifiable for either the hackers or the credit card companies to behave that way since it will have consequences for people involved which will damage them. This is in line with Kantianism which advocates certain actions which should not be carried out at all even if will provide justification and cause happiness. The hacking actions is not a movement and will not cause other people to participate even though they may be happy about it. Nor will it bring about any long-lasting change in the government or Wikileaks. Hence such actions should be avoided using Kantian theory. Utilitarianism is the theory which promotes actions which cause people to become happy. The actions which cause happiness for people are morally right while actions which do not bring about happiness are morally wrong. Therefore, the actions of hackers and card companies can be seen according to utilitarianism so can be constructed as being morally wrong.

The social contract is the theory which promotes the idea that the state has full authority and legitimacy over that of an individual person. In this context, this is promoted by the state not releasing to the public the documents and keeping them confidential. The state will always justify its interests over individual liberty and accessibility.It will pressurize companies to do its bidding.

Virtue ethics promotes the will, integrity and character . Virtue ethics is shown by Wikileaks which has released the documents despite the government acting against it thereby showing support to truth demonstrating character.