THEORIES COMPILED TOGETHER

1. RELATIVISM THEORY ……………………………………………… 1

2. UTILITARIANISM THEORY…………………………………………. 3
3. CONSEQUENTIALISM THEORY……………………………………. 6
4. SOCIAL CONTRACT………………………………………………….. 10
5. DEONTOLOGY………………………………………………………… 15

RELATIVISM THEORY
Foundation of computer Ethics

To understand the foundation of computer ethics, it is important to look into the different schools
of ethical theory. Each school of ethics influences a situation in a certain direction and pushes the
final outcome of the ethical theory.

1. Relativism is the belief that there are no universal moral norms of right and wrong.

Ethical Relativism is the view that moral (or normative) statements are not objectively true,
but “true” relative to a particular individual or society that happens to hold the belief.

In saying that moral beliefs are relative, we mean that they are a function of, or dependent on,
what those individuals or societies do, in fact, believe. Put negatively, according to Ethical
Relativism, there are no objective moral values, no objective right or wrong, and no
universally valid moral claims independent of what a subject happens to believe.

Two versions of Ethical Relativism

Individual or Personal Ethical Relativism: ethical statements are relative to the individual.
I have my ethical views and you have yours, neither my views nor your views are better or
more correct. In a sense we are all equally correct, insofar as whatever we believe is true, or
looked at differently, the idea of being more or less correct doesn’t apply to moral beliefs,
since that would assume that there is some objective standard of right or wrong, independent
of what I might believe which would serve as a standard of judgment, but that is exactly what
relativism denies. This is sometimes called ethical subjectivism.

Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism: ethical statements are relative to a given society.
1
Although societies may differ or disagree as to what is right or wrong, for an individual to
decide what is right or wrong, one must simply look to the norms of the society in which they
live. Right and wrong simply IS what a given society says it is. And although a society may
believe that its views are the correct ones, cultural ethical relativism insists that no society’s
views are better or more moral than any other society’s beliefs. For the same reason stated
above, there is no objective standard independent of what a society actually believes against
which its views might be evaluated.

Reasons (Arguments) for Ethical Relativism

1. Diversity of Moral Views

The fact of disagreement and differences in moral beliefs is evidence for the claim that there
are no objective (based on truth or unbiased) moral truths, but only subjective (not
impartial-based on somebody’s opinion) moral beliefs.

2. Moral Uncertainty

The fact that I do not know of certain morals (objectively) in a given situation, what is right
implies that there is no objective standard; hence morality is relative and subjective.

3. Situational Differences

Given the many differences in particular circumstances, what we call morality must be
relative to the particular situation and no objective or universally valid moral norms exist.

4. Toleration of Differences

Ethical Relativism promotes Tolerance for differences and/or Tolerance is consistent with
ethical relativism.

2
 UTILITARIANISM THEORY
According to David Lyons statement “Teleologists claim that the rightness of an acts depends
solely upon their utility, that is, upon their contribution towards intrinsically good states of
affairs”.
In other words, Teleology is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos
(reason, explanation). Teleology or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function
of its end, purpose, or goal. A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is
called extrinsic.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It
is a form of consequentialism. Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories
holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the
rightness or wrongness of that conduct.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good
for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force
or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the
way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.

However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the
consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights.  For
example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ
transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his
organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably
produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable
course of action, let alone the most ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and
wrong, it has obvious limitations.

3
According t Bernard Williams, “he provided a critique of utilitarianism without disputing the
acceptability of consequentialism, where he said that, there are some unacceptable features of
utilitarianism.” In reference to, David Lyons “Teleologists claim that the rightness of acts
depends solely upon their utility, that is upon their contribution towards intrinsically good states
of affairs

Utilitarianism rule / Act

Utilitarianism Rule / Act standard definitions - Act utilitarianism is the theory that a morally
right action is one that in the existing situation will produce the highest expected social utility.

On the other side, rule utilitarianism is the theory that a morally right action is simply an action
conforming to the correct moral rule applicable to the existing situation. The correct moral rule
itself is that particular behavioral rule that would yield the highest expected social utility if it
were followed by all morally motivated people in all similar situations.

Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of
one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that
conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act is one that will produce a
good outcome, or consequence.
Consequentialism is about the rightness or wrongness of an action /policy based on its
consequences. [Justification is based on the amount of good the actions or policies bring about.
However, Utilitarianism is the most familiar form of consequentialism and it states that one
should act to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Simple example; public road or
hospital, if it is to be constructed some where all means will be taken to see that dream come true
for the sec of the many would be beneficiaries.

Disadvantages of Consequentialism

I. Individuals must research the consequences of their acts before they can make an
ethically sound choice.
II. Doing such research is often impracticable or unfeasible or unviable and too costly.

4
III. The time taken by such research leads to slow decision making which may itself have bad
consequences, and the bad consequences of delay may outweigh the good consequences
of making a perfect decision.

Difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism.

Although utilitarianism and consequentialism are used interchangeably but there is a difference
between the two theories;
Utilitarianists are more concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number while as
consequentialists are more concerned with the greatest good than with the good of the greatest
number.

Three Basic Principles of Utilitarianism;

 Pleasure or happiness is the only thing that truly has intrinsic value.
 Actions are right insofar as they promote happiness, wrong insofar as they produce
unhappiness.
 Everyone's happiness counts equally.

Principle of double effect & Condition

According to Thomas Aquinas, Proponents of the principle of double effect have always

acknowledged that a proportionality condition must be satisfied when double effect is applied,
but this condition typically requires only that the good effect outweigh the foreseen
bad effect or that there be sufficient reason for causing the bad effect.

The Doctrine (brief) or principle of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility /
acceptability / tolerability of an action that causes a serious harm.

The above can deeply be explained using the example; such as a death of someone as an effect of
promoting some good end. In accordance to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is
permissible to cause a harm as a side effect / double effect of bringing about a good result, even
though it would not be permissible such a harm as a means to bring about the same good end.

Take: In a hospital there are four patients who need internal organ transplants; the one for the
heart, lungs, liver, kidney etc. Here comes an individual who has all his organs fully functioning.

5
Therefore, by the principle of double effect, one person can be killed to save the four lives, in
need of the internal organs.

Simple equivalence.
1 Consequentialism
2 Deontology
3 Virtue Ethics
4
Focuses on consequences of actions
Focuses on duties
Focuses on Character

CONSEQUENTIALISM THEORY
Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is simply the view that normative properties depend
only on consequences. This historically important and still popular theory embodies the basic
intuition that what is best or right is whatever makes the world best in the future, because we
cannot change the past, so worrying about the past is no more useful than crying over spilled
milk. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of
different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is probably consequentialism about the
moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the
consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or
a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.

Consequentialist ethics can seem fairly straightforward—if you want to know if an action is
ethical, then just look at its consequences. It can be difficult to know what kinds of consequences
will morally justify an act, and even harder to know what the consequences of our actions will
actually be. But in many cases we do know, or have a pretty good idea, and in many such cases
the consequences can be readily seen as morally choice worthy (‘this is the best thing for us to
do’) morally permissible (‘it’s not wrong for us to do this’), or morally impermissible (‘we
shouldn’t do this, it’s wrong’). When the moral consequences of a technological choice are
sufficiently foreseeable, we have an ethical responsibility to consider them.

Utilitarians are the best known type of consequentialist. Utilitarian ethics, in its most complete
formulation by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), asks us to weigh the overall happiness or welfare

6
that our action is likely to bring about, for all those affected and over the long term. Happiness is
measured by Mill in terms of aggregate pleasure and the absence of pain. Physical pleasure and
pain are not the most significant metrics, although they count; but Mill argues that at least for
human beings, intellectual and psychological happiness are of an even higher moral quality and
significance.

Another way to frame a consequentialist analysis is to focus on the common good, instead of the
aggregate welfare/happiness of individuals. The distinction is subtle but important. Utilitarians
consider likely injuries or benefits to discrete individuals, then sum those up to measure
aggregate social impact. But common good consequentialists look at the impact of a practice on
the health and welfare of communities or humanity as functional wholes. Welfare as measured
here goes beyond personal happiness to include things like political and public health, security,
liberty, sustainability, education, or other values deemed critical to flourishing community life.
Thus a technology that might seem to satisfy a utilitarian (by making most individuals personally
happy, say through neurochemical intervention) might fail the common good test if the result
was a loss of community life and health.

Computer and information ethics, as well as other fields of applied ethics, need ethical theories
which coherently unify deontological and consequentialist aspects of ethical analysis. With
emphasis on consequences of policies within the constraints of justice, this makes
consequentialism a practical and theoretically sound approach to ethical problems of computer
ethics.
Because of its fast-paced, continually evolving nature, the field of computer technology is one
that is often difficult to assign a specific moral code. However, it is critically important that a set
of ethical values be established for computing because it is an area that is susceptible to various
kinds of indiscretions. In order to do so, one must look to the ethical theories that form the
foundation of morality across all disciplines and professional fields. Before attempting to solve
the ethical dilemmas relating to computing, one must determine which ethical theory should be
applied to various situations. But even prior to that, one must understand what an ethical theory
is and why ethics are needed in today's society.
The malleability of computers allows them to be used in novel and unexpected ways, ways for
which we frequently do not have formulated policies for controlling their use.1 Advancing

7
computer technology produces policy vacuums in its wake. And even when relevant policies do
exist, they are often ambiguous or inadequate as they were designed for times with a less
versatile technology than computing.
A basic job of computer ethics is to identify these policy needs, clarify related conceptual
confusions, formulate appropriate new policies, and ethically justify them.
Policies are rules of conduct ranging from formal laws to informal, implicit guidelines for action.
Policies recommend kinds of actions that are sometimes contingent upon different situations.
“Turn off your computer when you are finished” is a policy though probably one without much
ethical significance.
“Don’t steal computer chips” is another policy with more obvious ethical content. Even when
policies are the policies of others they can help us to regulate our lives.
I believe that ethics needs more unifying theories that call upon the various strengths of the
traditional approaches to ethics. One is reminded of the story of the elephant in which each
observer obtaining evidence from only part of the elephant gives a description of the creature
that diverges dramatically from the descriptions by others. Of course, there is an overall
description of the elephant that makes sense of the individual apparently incompatible
descriptions.
Similarly, the elephant of ethical theory has been described by conflicting descriptions. Our job
is totry to discover, if possible, an overall description of the elephant that will make sense of
these apparently incompatible descriptions. This paper takes a few steps in that direction.

Example of Consequentialist Ethical Issues in Tech Practice:

It may be tempting in some situations to focus on the strikingly good consequences of a policy
while ignoring injustice. The potential good in given situation is so good that it seems to justify
being unjust.
Suppose a company wants to market a set of CDs with extensive personal information about
people in a country.The good from a marketing point of view is staggering. Every marketer
would be able to know considerable personal details about the citizens of a country and send out
relevant marketing materials to those who need it. The good that looks so good in the short run
may be overwhelmed by harm in the long run. The conventional consequentialist would point
out that harm is done initially to people’s autonomy and should not be overlooked. Because
people’s privacy is invaded, their security is reduced.

8
Another example is the current copyright law protects software. Suppose someone decides to
give a copy of her word processing software illegally to another person, a lowly graduate
student.There is potentially lost revenue to the software manufacturer but suppose that the
graduate student receiving the software is living on limited means and would not be able to buy
the software anyway. The student is someone who would benefit greatly from having the
software if she had it. Why not illegally copy software in such cases? The foreseeable good is
tempting.
We may all agree or more cautiously respond that the graduate student or the dispenser of illegal
software may be discovered which would lead to unanticipated harm. For example, the
university protecting itself from lawsuits may have a rule that a dissertation or coursework
discovered to bewritten on illegal software is not acceptable.
The ethical evaluation of a given policy requires the evaluation of the consequences of that
policy and often the consequences of the policy compared with the consequences of other
possible policies. If our actions involving computers had no harmful consequences, policies
would not be needed. However, conventional Consequentialism has well-known shortcomings.
Among other objections consequentialism seems to be insensitive to issues of justice. I believe
there may be a unifying ethical theory that allows us to take into account the consequences of
policies while at the same time making sure that these policies are constrained by principles of
justice.
When considering consequences we evaluate the benefits and harms. Human beings have a
common nature. At the core humans have similar kinds of values, i.e., what kinds of things they
consider to be goods (benefits) and what kinds of things they consider to be evils (harms). In
general the core goods include life, happiness, and autonomy and the core evils include death,
unhappiness, and lack of autonomy. By ‘happiness’ I mean simply ‘pleasure and the absence of
pain’. The notion of autonomy here needs some explanation as the term is used by others in
different ways. Obviously, humans do not share all their goals in common. But no matter what
goals humans seek they need ability, security, knowledge, freedom, opportunity and resources in
order to accomplish their projects. These are the kinds of goods that permit each us to do
whatever we want to. For brevity I will call this set of goods the ‘goods of autonomy’ or simply
‘autonomy’. The goods of autonomy are just the goods we would ask for in order to complete
our projects. For a given individual the goods of autonomy are not necessarily any less valuable

9
than happiness or even life. Some people will give up happiness for knowledge and some will
give up life without freedom.
Of course, humans are not necessarily concerned about the lives, happiness, and autonomy of
others, but they are concerned about their own. To be ethical one must not inflict unjustified
harm (death, suffering, or decreased autonomy) on others. To take the ethical point of view is to
be concerned for others at least to the extent that one tries to avoid harming them. The fact that
humans value and disvalue the same kinds of things suggests that, contrary to the claims of some
kinds of relativism, there may be common standards by which humans of different cultures can
evaluate actions and policies.

SOCIAL CONTRACT
1.0 meaning and background of Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or
political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society
in which they live. Social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political
theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John
Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential
theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory
throughout the history of the modern West.

The concept of social contract theory is that in the beginning man lived in the state of nature.
They had no government and there was no law to regulate them. There were hardships and
oppression on the sections of the society. To overcome from these hardships they entered into
two agreements which are:-

1. Pactum Unionis
2. Pactum Subjectionis.

By the first pact of unionis, people sought protection of their lives and property. As, a result of it
a society was formed where people undertook to respect each other and live in peace and
harmony. By the second pact of subjectionis, people united together and pledged to obey an
authority and surrendered the whole or part of their freedom and rights to an authority. The
authority guaranteed everyone protection of life, property and to a certain extent liberty. Thus,
they must agree to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they
had against one another in the State of Nature and they must imbue some one person or assembly
of persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure
their escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws,

10
and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it. Thus,
the authority or the government or the sovereign or the state came into being because of the two
agreements.

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during

the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over
the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either
explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler,
or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or
maintenance of the order. The relation between natural and legal rights is often a topic of social
contract theory.
The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition
absent of any political order (termed the "state of nature" by Thomas Hobbes). In this condition,
individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared
starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate why a rational individual would
voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.
Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature", human life would be "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have
unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder,
rape and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all.
To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (civil society)
through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an
absolute sovereign, one man or an assembly of men. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be
arbitrary and tyrannical,
Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of
nature. Hobbes asserted that humans consent to relinquish their rights in favor of the absolute
authority of government (whether monarchical or parliamentary).
The central assertion that social contract theory approaches is that law and political order are not
natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the
means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the
extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that government is not a party
to the original contract and citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too
weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest.
According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural
rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the "general will" by Rousseau),
citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or
other means including, when necessary, violence.
Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and therefore the rule of God superseded
government authority, while Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way to
ensure welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law.
The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of
Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor

11
of utilitarianism, Hegelianism and Marxism; they were revived in the 20th century, notably in the
form of a thought experiment by John Rawls
1.1 Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes

 Thomas Hobbes theory of Social Contract appeared for the first time in Leviathan
published in the year 1651 during the Civil War in Britain. Thomas Hobbes legal theory
is based on Social contract.
 According to him, prior to Social Contract, man lived in the State of Nature. Man’s life in
the State of NATURE was one of fear and selfishness. Man lived in chaotic condition of
constant fear.
 Life in the State of Nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Man has a natural
desire for security and order. In order to secure self protection and self-preservation, and
to avoid misery and pain, man entered Page 2 of 7 into a contract.

 This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent in man’s nature and in
order to achieve this, they voluntarily surrendered all their rights and freedoms to some
authority by this contract who must command obedience. As a result of this contract, the
mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their lives and property. This led to the
emergence of the institution of the ruler ormonarch, who shall be the absolute head.
 Subjects had no rights against the absolute authority or the sovereign and he is to be
obeyed in all situations however bad or unworthy he might be. However, Hobbes placed
moral obligations on the sovereign who shall be bound by natural law.

 Hence, it can be deduced that, Hobbes was the supporter of absolutism. In the opinion
of Hobbes, law is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign and the Government
without sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. He therefore,
reiterated that civil law is the real law because it is commanded and enforced by the
sovereign. Thus, he upheld the principle of Might is always Right. Hobbes thus infers
from his mechanistic theory of human nature that humans are necessarily and
exclusively self-interested.
 All men pursue only what they perceive to be in their own individually considered best
interests. They respond mechanistically by being drawn to that which they desire and
repelled by that to which they are averse. In addition to being exclusively self-interested,
Hobbes also argues that human beings are reasonable. They have in them the rational
capacity to pursue their desires as efficiently and maximally as possible. From these
premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to construct a provocative and compelling
argument for which they ought to be willing to submit themselves to political authority.

 He did this by imagining persons in a situation prior to the establishment of society, the
State of Nature. Hobbes impels subjects to surrender all their rights and vest all liberties
in the sovereign for preservation of peace, life and prosperity of the subjects. It is in this
way the natural law became a moral guide or directive to the sovereign for preservation
of the natural rights of the subjects. For Hobbes all law is dependent upon the sanction of
the sovereign.

12
 All real law is civil law, the law commanded and Page 3 of 7 enforced by the sovereign
and are brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular
men, in such a manner, as they might not hurt but to assist one another and join together
against a common enemy. He advocated for an established order. Hence, Individualism,
materialism, utilitarianism and absolutions are inter-woven in the theory of Hobbes.

1.3 Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke

 John Locke theory of Social Contract is different than that of Hobbes. According to
him, man lived in the State of Nature, but his concept of the State of Nature is different as
contemplated by Hobbesian theory. Lockes view about the state of nature is not as
miserable as that of Hobbes. It was reasonably good and enjoyable, but the property was
not secure. He considered State of Nature as a Golden Age.

 It was a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation. In that state of
nature, men had all the rights which nature could give them. Locke justifies this by
saying that in the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind was a state of perfect
and complete liberty to conduct ones life as one best sees fit. It was free from the
interference of others.

 In that state of nature, all were equal and independent. This does not mean, however, that
it was a state of license. It was one not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even
anything that one judges to be in ones interest. The State of Nature, although a state
wherein there was no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions
against laws, was not a state without morality. The State of Nature was pre-political, but
it was not premoral.

 Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally
capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. So, the State of Nature
was a state of liberty, where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free
from interference and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes
upon persons, it is relatively peaceful. Property plays an essential role in Lockes
argument for civil government and the contract that establishes it.

 According to Locke, private property is created when a person mixes his labour with the
raw materials of nature. Given the implications of the Law of Nature, there are limits as
to how much property one can own: one is not Page 4 of 7 allowed to take so more from
nature than oneself can use, thereby leaving others without enough for themselves,
because nature is given to all of mankind for its common subsistence. One cannot take
more than his own fair share.

 Property is the linchpin of Lockes argument for the social contract and civil government
because it is the protection of their property, including their property in their own bodies,
that men seek when they decide to abandon the State of Nature.

13
  John Locke considered property in the State of Nature as insecure because of three
conditions; they are: Absence of established law; . Absence of impartial Judge; and 3.
Absence of natural power to execute natural laws.
 Thus, man in the State of Nature felt need to protect their property and for the purpose
of protection of their property, men entered into the Social Contract. Under the contract,
man did not surrender all their rights to one single individual, but they surrendered only
the right to preserve / maintain order and enforce the law of nature.
 The individual retained with them the other rights, i.e., right to life, liberty and estate
because these rights were considered natural and inalienable rights of men. Having
created a political society and government through their consent, men then gained three
things which they lacked in the State of Nature: laws, judges to adjudicate laws, and the
executive power necessary to enforce these laws. Each man therefore gives over the
power to protect himself and punish transgressors of the Law of Nature to the
government that he has created through the compact.
 According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and protect
the natural rights of men.

 So long as the Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding
but, when it ceases to fulfil it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government
can be thrown out of power. In Locke’s view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural
law.
 Hence, John Locke advocated the principle of a state of liberty; not of license. Locke
advocated a state for the general good of people. He pleaded for a constitutionally limited
government. Page 5 of 7 Locke, in fact made life, liberty and property, his three cardinal
rights, which greatly dominated and influenced the Declaration of American
Independence, 1776.

1.4 Critical Apprehension of the social contract theory

 Given the longstanding and widespread influence that social contract theory has had, it
comes as no surprise that it is also the objects of many critiques from a variety of
philosophical perspectives. Feminists and race-conscious philosophers, in particular, have
made important arguments concerning the substance and viability of social contract
theory.
 Rousseau propounded that state, law and the government are interchangeable, but this in
present senerio is different. Even though government can be overthrown but not the state.
A state exists even there is no government.
 Hobbes concept of absolutism is totally a vague concept in present scenario. Democracy
is the need and examples may be taken from Burma and other nations.
 According to Hobbes, the sovereign should have absolute authority. This is against the
rule of law because absolute power in one authority brings arbitrariness.
 Locke concept of State of nature is vague as any conflict with regard to property always
leads to havoc in any society. Hence, there cannot be a society in peace if they have been
conflict with regard to property.
 Locke concept of laissez-faire is not of welfare oriented. Now in present scenario, every
state undertake steps to form a welfare state.

14
1.5 Application of social contract theory in the ICT environment

The social contract theory is directly connected to the ICT environment in any
organization. This is because when any organization doesn’t have any presiding authority
there would be control over information flow.

Further more in line with the theory without authoritative power with the in any
organization computer crimes wouldn’t be managed/controlled

The social contract theory encourages management of resources of an organization. This

is because when people have no managers then it could be very impossible to manage the
available resources i.e. a computer lab without a lab assistant that restrict/ implements
the policies it would be possible had to mention and monitor.

In state of nature where the society has no leader an organization would find it impossible
to manage its human resources as a very one would be guided by his or her mind or
opinion.

In conclusion therefore the theory of contract theory applies to the management of every
organization as policy and ethics of that organization is concerned. Given this, it would
be difficult to overestimate the effect that social contract theory has had, both within
philosophy, and on the wider culture. Social contract theory is undoubtedly with us for
the foreseeable future. But so too are the critiques of such theory, which will continue to
compel us to think and rethink the nature of both ourselves and our relations with one
another

DEONTOLOGY
When was deontology developed?
The term "deontology" derives from the Greek "deon" meaning "obligation" or "duty", and
"logos" meaning "speaking" or "study", and was first used in this way in 1930, in the book "Five
Types of Ethical Theory" by C. D. Broad (1887 - 1971).

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation,
duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether
that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences
of the action.
Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. Deontology is
often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. ... Unlike consequentialism, which judges
actions by their results, deontology doesn't require weighing the costs and benefits of a situation.

15
Deontological ethics is an ethics system that judges whether an action is right or wrong based on
a moral code. Consequences of those actions are not taken into consideration. ... In the other
hand, utilitarian ethics state that a course of action should be taken by considering the most
positive outcome
Why is deontology good?
In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of
the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at
least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare

What is an example of deontology?

Deontology is defined as an ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on
whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the
consequences of the action. An example of deontology is the belief that killing someone is
wrong, even if it was in self-defense

What are the 4 ethical theories?

Four broad categories of ethical theory include deontology, utilitarianism, rights, and virtues.
The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should adhere to their obliga- tions
and duties when engaged in decision making when ethics are in play

What are the characteristics of deontology?

Deontological (or "duty-based") Ethics. The chief characteristic of deontological theories is:
(moral) right (one's duty, how one should act) is defined independently of (moral) good.
Deontological theories necessarily generate "categorical imperatives" (that is, duties independent
of any theory of good).

What justifies the means in deontology?

Deontology says that whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends on some quality of the action
itself. ... They propose some standard by which to measure the outcome (usually "utility"), and
think that the best course of action is the one that maximizes utility. For consequentialists, the
ends always justify the means.

Why is deontology important?

We should be motivated by our respect for the moral law itself. Deontologists require us to
follow universal rules we give to ourselves. ... This is because in emphasising the intention to act
in accordance with our duties, deontology believes the consequences of our actions have no
ethical relevance at all

What is rule deontology?

Rule Deontology. In Normative Ethical Theory a sub-group of deontological theories that
maintain that the good, and therefore moral obligation, are necessarily linked to some set of

16
objective rules. Both Kantianism and the Divine Command Theory would be examples of rule
deontological morality.

What are the basic principles of deontology?

The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set
of principles and rules regardless of outcome. In religious deontology, the principles derive
from divine commandment so that under religious laws, we are morally obligated not to steal, lie,
or cheat.
END

17