Ethical Egoism and Altruism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Ethical Egoism and Altruism - Essay Example Most of the people involved in this incident acted in a manner that showed that they advanced their self-interests. The van driver who hit the girl stopped for a moment after he realized that he had hit a toddler. He then drove on crushing the toddler beneath his rear wheels. The driver’s actions can be considered as ethical egoism because he realized that he had caused an accident (Branigan, 2011). In order to avoid arrest, or the reactions of bystanders, he decided to escape from the scene. The actions of bystanders were motivated by ethical egoism because they did not mind the agony of the girl. The truck driver’s actions also represented ethical egoism because he was concerned about his destination rather than the safety of other road users. The apparent indifference of the bystanders and the two drivers exposed the girl to physical injuries. These people were reluctant to help because they were scared of security agents, or they feared to be accused of having cause d the accident. The fullness of egoistic satisfaction is dependent on the maintenance of normal relations between benefits obtained and efforts expended (Driver, 2013). The case of the two-year old clearly shows this relationship when the passersby refused to offer assistance. They believed that their actions would only benefit the two-year old. According to ethical altruism, people are moral agents who have obligations to help others. The actions of these moral agents should be based on the impact of their action on other people.

Cyber Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Cyber Law - Essay Example Therefore, an analysis of all of the above will begin below, starting with the legality of Naj’s actions and whether or not he needs to give Sarah the information she is asking for. Advise Naja of the legality of his actions, and whether he needs to give Sarah the information she is asking for. One of the issues in this question deals with Sarah’s right to privacy. The advent of new communication technologies including the distribution of personal information; the acceleration of the speed of communication through e-mail, IM, social networking and the like; and the ability of employers to electronically monitor employees has made this a hot-button issue.1 As employers cannot reasonably take the Internet and e-mail away from their employees without hurting the company's efficiency, there must be a balance between the need for employers to provide the Internet for business-related functions and reasonable personal use, and the employees tendency to abuse their privilege. Therefore, employers increasingly turn to tools such as monitoring employee e-mail and Internet usage, and disciplining employees who abuse the privilege.2 Employers typically do this with software that reads, intercepts and monitor's employee's electronic e-mail and Internet usage, much to the consternation of many employees.3 At present, â€Å"employers can lawfully intercept, search and read any messages stored in workplace computers because courts have ruled that employees have no expectation of privacy in workplace electronic communications.†4 As employee abuse of e-mail and Internet privileges can have severe consequences - in addition to lost productivity, such abuses also open the employer up to security breaches, viruses and hacking, not to mention that employees commit crimes against their employers more than third parties5 - there is a definite need for employers to subject their employees to surveillance. Then there is the issue of â€Å"cyberslacking,† whi ch is just like it sounds – employees abusing their privilege and taking away valuable company time with their personal on-line activities, which leads to loss of productivity and theft of company resources.6 However, employees have rights as well, and there are a number of different UK cases and statutes that are implicated in employee surveillance. One such is the Human Rights Act 1998, which states in Article 8 that â€Å"everyone has a right to respect for his private†¦correspondence.†7 Courts have interpreted this particular Act in a variety of ways that would be pertinent to the question of employee surveillance. For instance, the court in Halford v. UK [1997] I.R.L.R. 471 (1997). This court found that intercepting phone calls made from an employee on business premises was a breach of the employee’s privacy.8 This decision was upheld in Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1998) 28 E.H.R.R. 4839 and Douglas v. Hello Ltd. [2001] QB 96710. Other decisions per tinent was the decision in Niemitz v. Germany (1992) 16 E.H.H.R.R. 97, in which the search of a lawyer’s office invaded his private life.11 However, the right to privacy is not absolute – if the employer has a legitimate concern that is being furthered by the seizure, which a surveillance would be considered to be, then the employer would be held to be