Andy Warhol
Páginas: 3 (525 palabras)
Publicado: 8 de febrero de 2013
1.) In my opinion I do not agree with their statements because even though it seems something harmless, they are stealing. The owners are paying for the service. However is also true that owners mustencrypt their wireless networks if they don’t want this to happen. It is the owner’s decision to protect or not its wireless networks.
2.) According to Kant’s theory of categorical imperative,he would never agree to the statements of those people in the Wi-Fi Piggybacking case. He says that people should not benefit from others people expense. Even with the old woman who says that if shegets caught nothing would probably happen because she is old and people should have consideration of her state. In his way of thinking he would penalize the actions of these people.
3.) They will bogdown the speed of the wireless service of the neighbor they are stealing from.
Case 1.16
The ethics officer and first class for TSA
1.) No, She is being unethical because she is violating theethic standards by taking advantage of others.
2.) In some way it’s true that she is helping everyone but she is doing it only because of self interest.
3.) Yes because she is cutting all theline. The other people would also want to do the same thing, which is bad.
4.) People who really paid to be on first class will be affected.
Case 1.17
Speeding on the job: Obeying the Rules: Whywe do and don’t
1.) Its important because it shows that the rules apply for everyone, even for the ones who enforce them.
2.) They thought that the speed limit was 65mph and because of thismotto that if you are 9 miles above the speed you are fine they speeded up to 72 and 76 which still is illegal since 10 miles above the speed limit is not permitted. Another possibility was that theylie by saying their speed was 65mph. In relating this case to normative standard, it can be concluded that they did not just do an unethical action but also an action that is punishable by the law....
2.) According to Kant’s theory of categorical imperative,he would never agree to the statements of those people in the Wi-Fi Piggybacking case. He says that people should not benefit from others people expense. Even with the old woman who says that if shegets caught nothing would probably happen because she is old and people should have consideration of her state. In his way of thinking he would penalize the actions of these people.
3.) They will bogdown the speed of the wireless service of the neighbor they are stealing from.
Case 1.16
The ethics officer and first class for TSA
1.) No, She is being unethical because she is violating theethic standards by taking advantage of others.
2.) In some way it’s true that she is helping everyone but she is doing it only because of self interest.
3.) Yes because she is cutting all theline. The other people would also want to do the same thing, which is bad.
4.) People who really paid to be on first class will be affected.
Case 1.17
Speeding on the job: Obeying the Rules: Whywe do and don’t
1.) Its important because it shows that the rules apply for everyone, even for the ones who enforce them.
2.) They thought that the speed limit was 65mph and because of thismotto that if you are 9 miles above the speed you are fine they speeded up to 72 and 76 which still is illegal since 10 miles above the speed limit is not permitted. Another possibility was that theylie by saying their speed was 65mph. In relating this case to normative standard, it can be concluded that they did not just do an unethical action but also an action that is punishable by the law....
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.