Question

Analysis 1: Technology has made it possible for users to share information or artifacts (books, songs, etc.) easily and at no cost. While this may seem good for users, it often harms the original creators of these works. Ethically, are the creators of technology responsible for preventing such illegal use of their creations? Defend your position fully (i.e. using multiple perspectives).

Analysis 2: In Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment the main character murders an old woman who has great wealth stored in her apartment. After killing her, he steals the money. He argues that (1) she is a malicious old woman (useless to herself and to society) that contributes no happiness to the world; and (2) her money would only fall into similar hands. He plans to use the money for good. Discuss the ethics of his actions and fully explain your thoughts.

Analysis 3: You are an eyewitness to a crime. A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children (i.e. the “Robin Hood” scenario). You know who committed the crime. What do you do? Fully support and analyze your decision from multiple perspectives. Consider why someone might answer it differently than you. Can you offer reasons for their views? Are any of these reasons persuasive?

NOTE: IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ANSWER TO BE LONG. A CONCISED AND STRAIGHT TO THE POINT ANSWER WILL BE OK. THANKS

Answer 1

Analysis 1: Technology has made it possible for users to share information or artifacts (books, songs, etc.) easily and at no cost. While this may seem good for users, it often harms the original creators of these works. Ethically, are the creators of technology responsible for preventing such illegal use of their creations? Defend your position fully (i.e. using multiple perspectives).

Opinion vary from individual to individual. There are millions of people working towards something and sharing the thoughts and knowledge. And honestly, there is no price attached to sharing knowledge. What I have seen when any individual has done extensive study or a research or worked on an model, then there is price attached.

Technology made things such knowledge accessible to everyone. There is two ways to look at it specially from India market context.

1. No cost because they want to increase the knowledge and build on reach.
2. Techology people have worked on model where can earn the revenue from. Example Saavan.com[song app] where the technology working on various option for brands and advertisers to run there complete business model.

Same applied to Bollywood movies. They earn from cinema, they earn from selling the rights to broadcaster, they ear from running the commercial etc.

Hence, Its not a illegal use of creation. It’s a consumption of someone passion or content simply.

Analysis 2: In Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment the main character murders an old woman who has great wealth stored in her apartment. After killing her, he steals the money. He argues that (1) she is a malicious old woman (useless to herself and to society) that contributes no happiness to the world; and (2) her money would only fall into similar hands. He plans to use the money for good. Discuss the ethics of his actions and fully explain your thoughts.

Moral speculations are hypotheses of right activity. Moral standards are intended to manage activity. What's more, if moral tenets exist, they apply to all specialists. Speculations of activity and office look to figure out what considers an activity, what recognizes operators from nonagents and the rules that administer what happens when specialists act. These joint endeavors both rely upon and educate each other.

When we ponder about what to do, we regularly consider what moral prerequisites we may be under. We consider what we ethically should do. It regularly appears as though the response to that inquiry can rely upon what sorts of capacities we have, what choices are accessible. In the event that I can't accomplish something, either on the grounds that I do not have the capacity to do it or on the grounds that I don't have the chance to act in that way, at that point conceivably it isn't the situation that I ought to do that thing. All the more essentially, maybe, it isn't the situation that I fizzled an ethical necessity. So what sorts of capacities do we have and how would they compel what we should do?

Moral standards disclose to us what we ought to do. Yet, activity hypothesis reveals to us that what individuals do is a confused issue. Ordinarily, specialists need and trust things, shape expectations to act, at that point follow up on those aims, while creating different outcomes or results. So an imperative inquiry for morals and activity hypothesis is: What parts of my activity decide if I act wrongly? Am I ethically evaluable just for those parts I expect expressly? Or then again should I respond in due order regarding unintended outcomes? In troublesome cases, which take need?

Only moral agents need concern themselves with right action. However, we also think that morality is not optional. If some action is wrong, then no one should do it. No matter how much you want to, you

still should not. And this seems like an important and necessary feature of morality. Ethicists have struggled, however, to justify why moral requirements should be universally binding. Some think that if we pay close attention to what it is to be an agent, one who performs actions for reasons, then we will find such a justification.

Analysis 3: You are an eyewitness to a crime. A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children (i.e. the “Robin Hood” scenario). You know who committed the crime. What do you do? Fully support and analyze your decision from multiple perspectives. Consider why someone might answer it differently than you. Can you offer reasons for their views? Are any of these reasons persuasive?

Seems like very Bollywood. Please see Mr.India, you will love it.

It has both positive and negative aspect. Helping poor is good but robbing is not right, ethically. If I read it closely, he robbed [ once], which can be ignored and not to file a complaint. Let it go .

Point of view is very individualistic in nature. Someone who is full of ethics or right / wrong will state that this is wrong- because he robbed other hard-earned money. Can not let him go, he should be punished.