Explain the Utilitarian & Deontological aspects of informational privacy for employers & employees
Patricia Dunn, placed number 17 on FORBES list of most powerful women, landed herself four felony counts by making unethically chivalrous decisions. Patricia Dunn, once a chairwoman on the board of Hewlett-Packard, a position she held from February 2005 until September 2006. Her tenure was cut short on October 4, 2006 as she was charged with four felony counts for her role in a spying scandal.
Five months later on March 14, 2007, California Supreme Court judge Ray Cunningham dropped criminal charges against her in the “interest of justice” on all four felony counts: fraudulent use of wire, radio or television transmissions; taking, copying, and using computer data without authorization. (A&E Television Networks 2011)
She broke the golden rule of honor by teaming up and taking unethical measures to seek out a “leaker. She claims she had no idea “pretexting” (the practice of deceiving individuals into surrendering personal information for fraudulent purposes) could involve identity misrepresentation. In addition, she testified that she believed personal phone records could be obtained through legal methods.
Showing more respect to her peers by giving them the benefit of the doubt would have been a more Utilitarianistic direction. Had she openly expressed the concern with HP’s long term strategy being public, it may have been resolved just that simply.
SO, where does this leave Patty Dunns ethical reasoning? Her utilitarianism reasoning does not show happiness for the greater number. Her deontological reasoning held a lot to be desired by failing to ensure laws and regulations were standard. Ultimately, it appears that Patricia Dunn did not have a strategy or plan of attack.
In Patty Dunn’s case it seems she failed to implement either deontological or utilitarianism reasoning. Had she followed a more...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document