Decision Making Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility

Question: Discuss about the Decision Making for Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility. Answer: Introduction Case and King (2014) stated that spam email is a subset of the electronic spam where a single message is sent by email. The email includes malware as executable file attachments. The spam email is grown since the early 1990s. The spammers collect the email addresses from the websites, newsgroups as well as viruses that get the email addresses of the users and then sold it to other spammers. Chell et al., (2016) argued that email continues to be far most important service for the users of the internet. The report is based on privacy issue that is one of the main causes of receiving spam emails from the spammers. The report also reflects of the ethical analysis of the identified issue using four of the ethical theories and one of the theories of ACS code of ethics. It helps to identify if spam mail is right or wrong. Background of issue of spam email Reidenbach and Robin (2013) opined that spam is a result of lack of ethics as well as integrity in regards to promotional activities on the internet. The ethical dilemma faced by the organization is an invasion of privacy. In this report, spam is taken as a privacy issue. The customers of any organization should consider as unethical if it harms the professional credibility of them. It is a non-permissive approach if the spammers disclose the profile information or any sensitive information of the customers to others that could exploit the individuals life (Weiss, 2014). The advent of the email within the business world creates a new ground to moral dilemmas involving the information access as well as privacy. Ethical Analysis of spam email Utilitarianism Warren and Lucas (2016) stated that utilitarianism is a theory of ethics states that the right action is the one, which produces the greatest amount of happiness as well as pleasure for a large number of population. The rule of utilitarianism adopts moral rules, and if everyone follows it, then it leads to a greatest rise in total happiness. If the organization follows the rule of utilitarianism, then it diminishes the usefulness of the email system. A spammer chooses to send advertisements to many email addresses so that it would prefer to buy their products. When one advertisement is sent to other email addresses, then there is a chance of clogged with spam (Hartman, DesJardins MacDonald, 2014). Spammers do not respect others time as well as money; they are only focused on their profit. The recipients are not interested in their messages, and there is wastage of time deleting unwanted emails. As per the act of utilitarianism, the people those are involved in spamming are the spammers. The recipients those are receiving those spam either happy if they want the product and irritated if they unwanted messages that clog their email (DesJardins McCall, 2014). Some people are happy with this act of thinking that it would give help in saving money with cheap products. However, on another hand, some people are not happy with the spam email, and it is not making happy to everyone. Therefore, spamming is identified as wrong. According to the rule of utilitarianism, spam benefits the spammers if they buy their product and the product prove to be beneficial for them (Hursthouse, 2013). The disadvantage is for those people who are not interested in the message. It causes announce due to wastage of both time as well as money, and the email is being clogged by unwanted messages. Deontology Ethics Schrittwieser, Mulazzani and Weippl (2013) stated that the deontology theory is that the individuals are morally obligated in order to act by some principles as well as rules regardless of the outcomes. According to this theory, the principles derive from divine commandment such that it is under the religious laws, that the individuals are morally obligated not to tell a lie, steal as well as a cheat. The messages those are sent to the individuals should not hurt other feelings as well as emotions. Broad (2014) argued that this theory teaches that if the spammers treat others as an end, and they only think of their profit, then the spammers treat the recipients as a means to an end and therefore the spamming is identified as wrong. Melewar, Gambetti and Martin (2014) opined that this theory is mainly duty based. Morality must be grounded in this concept of duty. Morality does not do with the promotion of happiness as well as achievement of desirable consequences. Unless, the spammers treat fairly since the same rules would be applied to all the persons. The spammers should also treat the recipients in same equality level such as they should only think of their profit but also think that due to receiving of spam messages, the recipients are not irritated. When the spammer should send messages to the individuals, then it should ensure that they are happy with it (Meijdam, 2015). Spammers should also respect the time as well as money of the recipients and give them proper profit. Social Contract Theory Warren and Lucas (2016) stated that the social contract theory gives a right to free speech for everyone. Therefore, anyone can send an email to anyone. There is no such requirement that people should listen to them about what they say. However, when this right of free speech is given to people, it has being observed that on rights of others as well. If some of the people are unhappy with the spam message, then it should able to send an angry reply to the message to the spammers. The problem is that the spammers forge headers such that they do not get angry replies from the recipients (Shafer-Landau, 2012). It violates the equality, and therefore the spam mail as well as this spamming is identified as wrong. Therefore, the factor that creates a problem is equality of human power. If all people are happy with the spam messages, and they think that, it will give benefit to them, then there is a high level of equality among the human beings. Then, it will prove that spamming is not wrong. However, the main fact is that 99,990,000 are people are unhappy with the spam mail (Weber, 2014). Then, they should send an angry reply to the spammers, and it would result in a high cost to the spammers. Melewar, Gambetti and Martin (2014) argued that the social contract theory is defined as an individuals at the society consenting to set of moral rules which govern how the people are to be treated one another for mutual benefit. The antis-spam organization is refusing to accept the mail did something wrong. Even though, the spam emails dropped down to approximately 25 percent (Leicester, 2016). It is not right to put in there; it is called blacklist. Only the anti-spam organizations are benefited due to this. Character based Theory Reidenbach and Robin (2013) stated that the character based theory is a term which refers to normative ethical theories that would emphasize the virtues of the mind as well as character. It is also known as virtue ethics. If the organization should follow as well as understand the virtue ethics, then it helps frame different approaches in order to communicate in the workplace, which leads to a better outcome for the employees as well as customers. Warren and Lucas (2016) opined that this ethical theory develops strong positive character traits which will tend to do the right thing. This theory focuses on criteria to do with the development of the character of the spammers as well as the acquisition of good character traits from the habits they develop. In order to become a character based ethical person, one is being required to develop their strength as well as excellence (DesJardins McCall, 2014). To become a moral person, one requires getting right virtues. It is required to give proper training of good habits as well as character traits; one should require achieving moral virtues such as courage. In a case of spam email, sometimes the spammers sent spam email to the customers to get any information from them. As taken an example, InterMovies is a site, which streams movies for a monthly fee. It is used to collect information about movie choices from the customers. It also constructs profiles of the customers (Vanberg, 2016). Some of the customers are happy in order to receive mail order from the spammers while others are happy due to increasing in spam mail. Therefore, here again, all the customers are not happy with the spam mail, therefore the process of sending spam mail to the customers as well as individuals are again wrong. ACS code of ethics Warren and Lucas (2016) stated that the professional person should advance the honor as well as the effectiveness of the profession of information processing. They should also keep high standards of competence as well as ethical conduct. In this report, honesty is taken as an element of ACS code of ethics. The spammers should be honest about their skills, services as well as products. Spam email is most of the biggest privacy threat as the spam where the unwanted emails are sent daily without aware the users. In some of the regions, the spammers are difficult to track since it clusters the mailbox as well as contains malicious content (Reidenbach Robin, 2013). When email is sent to the individuals, then the spammers should be honest in the following areas such as: The spammers should not mislead the customers to the suitability of their products as well as services (Case King, 2014). The spammers should not misrepresent their skills as well as knowledge while delivering spam emails to the persons. They must qualify opinions of professional, which are based on limited knowledge as well as experience (DesJardins McCall, 2014). They must give credit for the work that is done by others. The Spammers should know about the law about sending emails such as Spam Act. If the spammers are promoting as well as advertising some product or services through the electronic communication such as through the use of spam mail, then they should ensure that it must not against the Spam Act (Vanberg, 2016). The law should focus on honesty such as tell the recipients about where the email is coming from. There should be a label of "From", "To" as well as "Reply To", so that the recipients should know the sender. Therefore, the spam mail should contain the person's name as well as a name of the business sending the email to the recipients. Conclusion It is concluded that the spam mail is the emails that are unsolicited as well as it is sent to the users. The spammers collect the address of the emails of the users through the websites or sometimes hack it from the website where the users have shared it. They get the email addresses of the users and then sold it to other spammers. The spam emails are accepted as unethical when it harms the professional credibility of the users. When lost of emails are sent to the users, then it would clog their emails, and it results in dissatisfaction of the customers. From the ethical analysis of the spam email, it is identified that all the ethical theories are identified spam mail as wrong. When all the users are happy with the mail, and they are a desire to buy the products and services, then it results into equality of the human. Honesty code of ethics is required to form some trust among the users so that they are ensuring that the spam emails cannot harm their personal information as well a s their reputations. References Broad, C. D. (2014).Five types of ethical theory(Vol. 2). Routledge. Case, C. J., King, D. L. (2014). System Security: A Trend Analysis of Student Electronic Resources Use Policy Perceptions and Risky Behavior.ASBBS E-Journal,10(1), 31. Chell, E., Spence, L. J., Perrini, F., Harris, J. D. (2016). Social entrepreneurship and business ethics: does social equal ethical?.Journal of Business Ethics,133(4), 619-625. DesJardins, J. R., McCall, J. J. (2014).Contemporary issues in business ethics. Cengage Learning. Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J. R., MacDonald, C. (2014).Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. McGraw-Hill. Hursthouse, R. (2013). Normative virtue ethics.ETHICA,645. Leicester, N. (2016). Ethics in the IT Profession: Does a Code of Ethics have an Effect on Professional Behaviour?. Meijdam, K. C. (2015).Phishing as a Service: Designing an ethical way of mimicking targeted phishing attacks to train employees(Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology). Melewar, T. C., Gambetti, R. C., Martin, K. D. (2014). Special Issue on: Managing Intangible Ethical Assets: Enhancing Corporate Identity, Corporate Brand, and Corporate Reputation to Fulfill the Social Contract.Business Ethics Quarterly,24(02), 310-312. Reidenbach, R. E., Robin, D. P. (2013). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. InCitation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics(pp. 45-67). Springer Netherlands. Schrittwieser, S., Mulazzani, M., Weippl, E. (2013, May). Ethics in security research which lines should not be crossed?. InSecurity and Privacy Workshops (SPW), 2013 IEEE(pp. 1-4). IEEE. Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2012).Ethical theory: an anthology(Vol. 13). John Wiley Sons. Vanberg, V. J. (2016).Social contract vs. invisible hand: Agreeing to solve social dilemmas(No. 16/04). Walter Eucken Institut eV. Warren, M., Lucas, R. (2016). Ethics and ICT: Why all the fuss?.Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society,14(2). Weber, T. M. (2014). Examining Social Contract Theory. Weiss, J. W. (2014).Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.