Social Contract Theory Analysis
Social Contract Theory Analysis
1-1
1-1
Act Utilitarian Analysis
• Benefits
– Popularity of Kate’s blog increased (definitely)
– Jerry become more popular on campus (definitely)
• Harms
– Jerry’s anger at Kate (only temporary)
– Photo could discredit Jerry at some point in future
(unlikely)
• Benefits greater than harms, so Kate did a good
thing
1-2
1-2
Rule Utilitarian Analysis
• True friends trust each other and seek each other’s good
• Reciprocity and equality are fundamental elements of
friendship
• Lack of reciprocity: Kate took something from Jerry
without giving him anything in return
• Lack of equality: She put her own interest above that of
Jerry
• Kate’s actions did not seem to be characteristic of a good
friend
1-4
1-4
Summary
1-5
1-5
3.7 Children and Inappropriate
Content
1-6
1-6
Web Filters
1-7
1-7
Calvin and Hobbes, 1990 / © Universal Press Syndicate
1-8
1-8
Child Internet Protection Act
1-9
1-9
Ethical Evaluations of CIPA
1-10
1-10
Sexting
1-11
1-11
3.8 Breaking Trust
1-12
1-12
Identity Theft (1/2)
1-13
1-13
Identity Theft (2/2)
1-14
1-14
Chat-Room Predators
1-15
1-15
Ethical Evaluations of “Stings”
• Utilitarian evaluation
• Kantian evaluation
• Social contract theory evaluation
1-16
1-16
False Information
1-19
1-19
Is Internet Addiction Real?
1-21
1-21
South Koreans in a PC Bang
• Social factors
– Peer groups
• Situational factors
– Stress
– Lack of social support and intimacy
– Limited opportunities for productive activity
• Individual factors
– Tendency to pursue activities to excess
– Lack of achievement
– Fear of failure
1-23
1-23
Ethical Evaluation
• Enlightenment view
– Individuals can and should govern their lives
– People are responsible for their choices
• Jeffrey Reiman’s view
– Addict’s behavior makes sense if addict has
no hope for a better future
– Society bears responsibility for putting people
in hopeless situations
1-24
1-24