What is the DET?
• The Doing Ethics Technique (DET) is a
procedural technique for analysing ethical
scenarios.
• Consists of 8 logical steps.
▫ Analyses a single scenario.
▫ Theoretically independent.
▫ Doesn’t guarantee the best solution, but should result
in a good one.
Simpson, C. R., Nevile, L., & Burmeister, O. K. (2003). Doing ethics: A universal technique in an
accessibility context. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), 127-133.
The Doing Ethics
Technique
What’s going
on?
Which option
is best – and
why?
What options
are there?
What are the
facts?
What are the
issues?
Ethical
solution
What can be
done about
it?
Who is
affected?
What are the
ethical issues
and
implications?
Questions in detail
Q1. What’s going on?
▫ A synopsis of the case under analysis. All the major
points of the case should be touched on.
▫ Consider that you’re describing the case to someone
who knows nothing about it, and who only wants an
executive summary.
Questions in detail
Q2. What are the facts?
▫ A descriptive list of ALL the known facts of the case,
and also what one might reasonably consider to be
possibilities.
▫ All the facts listed must be supported by evidence.
▫ If you wish, you may assign a credibility weighting to
each fact.
Questions in detail
Q3. What are the issues?
▫ A comprehensive list of ALL the issues raised in the
case, including:
Ethical issues
Non-ethical issues (social, legal, and so on)
▫ In Q5 we extract the ethical issues listed here. If
an ethical issue isn’t listed here, you can’t list it at
Q5.
Questions in detail
Q4. Who is affected?
▫ A comprehensive list of ALL the entities affected by
the case (the stakeholders).
▫ Do not restrict yourself to only those stakeholders
listed in the case. Consider who/what else might
reasonably be affected.
▫ Also include a discussion about how each
stakeholder is affected.
▫ You must support these claims with credible
evidence.
Questions in detail
Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?
▫ Extract only the ethical issues from Q3.
▫ Discuss:
the ethical issues in terms of classical ethical theory
or the ACS Code of Conduct; and
the implications of each issue as it affects each
stakeholder, relevant industry and on the
community in general
▫ You must support your claims with credible
evidence.
Questions in detail
Q6. What can be done about it?
▫ A descriptive idea of what can be done to resolve the
case, whether those ideas are practical, possible, or
not.
▫ Come up with at least four (4) alternatives. Each
alternative must be different.
▫ Be creative. The most obvious courses of action
are not the only ones.
Questions in detail
Q7. What are the options?
▫ A detailed descriptive list of all the possible options
that might be available to resolve the case, based on
your response to Q6.
▫ It’s possible that some options will result in
negative consequences for some, so describe the
positive & negative outcomes for each stakeholder.
▫ You must list & describe at least three (3) different
alternative options.
Questions in detail
Q8. Which option is best, and why?
▫ Assess which of the options at Q7 is best.
▫ You are recommending one or more options from
Q7, so give valid, reasoned arguments for choosing
your recommended option(s).
▫ Give valid, reasoned arguments for eliminating
the ‘unsuccessful’ options.
▫ Add your own intellectual property as an ICT
professional.
▫ Use a fortiori to determine the best option.
What is an ethical issue?
• An ethical issue is one which relates to morality.
Examples: honesty, integrity, trust, harm, duty, professionalism,
privacy, competence, and so on.
• A non-ethical issue is one which relates to social,
economic, legal, physical, practical, scientific, or
other issues – anything except issues of
morality.
• Don’t get them confused!
What is an ethical issue?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Answer every question in order.
Use headings for each question.
Use complete English sentences.
Avoid bulleted lists (like this one) where possible.
Fully explain everything, except common knowledge.
If you make a claim, provide evidence to support it.
Each DET question is standalone. The fact that you’ve
given information in response to one question does not
relieve you of the necessity to give it again for a later
question.
An example case study
Ben
• Ben is a software developer working for a major international
software corporation.
• He is tasked with developing several modules for a large and complex
software product that will be sold to millions of people around the
world.
• With the official product release date looming, he is under pressure to
submit his modules for testing in order to meet the development
schedule.
• Due to earlier modules taking longer than expected, he realises that
he won’t be able to complete the last module on time, so does not
inform his Manager and submits it without any code in it, knowing
full-well that the test engineers will log it as a bug and return it to him
to be fixed, at which time he plans to develop the module properly.
• He believes that doing so will not adversely affect the end product’s
quality or delivery date.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q1. What’s going on?
1. Ben is a software developer for a major international software
corporation. He is working on a product that will be sold to millions of
people worldwide.
2. He is under pressure to complete his part of the work and submit it for
testing. Due to earlier tasks taking longer than expected, he knows he
won’t be able to finish on time, so rather than advise his manager, he
submits an incomplete software module to avoid missing an important
deadline.
3. Ben knows that he’ll be able to complete the module when the testers
return it for bug fixing, something he believes won’t adversely impact
the product quality or schedule.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q2. What are the facts?
1. Ben is a software developer working for a major international software
corporation.
2. He is developing several modules for a large and complex software product.
3. The product will be sold to millions of people around the world.
4. The official product release date looming.
5. Ben is under pressure to submit his modules for testing in order to meet the
development schedule.
6. Due to earlier modules taking longer than expected, Ben realises that he won’t be
able to complete the last module on time.
7. He submits the module without any code in it.
8. He knows that the test engineers will log it as a bug and return it to him for
remediation.
9. When that happens, he plans to develop the module properly.
10. He believes that doing so will not adversely affect the end product’s quality or
delivery date.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q3. What are the issues?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
From the case, there is no evidence that the pressure Ben was under was anything other than
the normal pressure of meeting an impending deadline.
When Ben realised he was not going to meet the deadline, he could have acted with integrity
and advised his manager, who may then have advised him about the proper course of action.
Instead, he dishonestly pretended his module was complete and submitted it anyway. He had
a duty to his manager, the test team and to his company to perform his tasks with
professionalism, but rather, chose to use them as a means to an end. Regardless of whether
his actions is discovered, he may lose trust in the eyes of his manager and his peers.
Ben’s actions may well have increased the overall project cost by forcing an unnecessary bug
fix cycle, as well as affecting his own reputation due to his increased bug count.
He did not appear to consider the possibility that the tester may do exactly what he did,
potentially resulting in a defective product being shipped.
In the event that the ‘bug’ does slip through into a production release, potentially millions of
users will be affected in unknown ways. This potentially may result in law suits filed for
negligent and incompetence, with the by-product being additional costs and lack of market
trust for his employer.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q4. Who is affected?
▫ The main stakeholders in this case are Ben, his manager and the
test team.
I.
Ben is affected because he is the one who has breached professional and ethical
standards. If no-one finds out about it, he will benefit by being seen as a competent
developer, albeit having a bug statistic on his professional record. Either way, Ben is
still affected by the knowledge that he has done the wrong thing and tricked his
employer and his teammates.
II. If his action is discovered, he may face disciplinary action by his employer, possibly
resulting in termination, which may then affect his family. Certainly he will lose
credibility, trust and professional standing in the eyes of his employer and peers. If
he is a member of the ACS, he also risks expulsion.
III. Regardless of whether Ben’s action is discovered, Ben’s manager may also suffer
harm as he is ultimately responsible for the developers under his control, and in
many companies bug statistics directly impact a manager’s performance review. If
discovered, the manager will also be harmed by the dismay he will feel at having
been treated with disrespect.
IV. The test team has been impacted by the extra workload imposed by additional
testing and documentation on a known faulty module. They too may also feel
disrespected by Ben’s deception and disrespect.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q4. Who is affected? (...cont)
▫ Other stakeholders include Ben’s employer, the end-users and the
supply chain partners.
I.
Ben’s employer is affected by additional development costs and the potential loss
of public confidence if the bug gets through to production. Litigation costs can be
added to the list of undesirable affects in such a case. If the fault is resolved prior to
release, the employer will (presumably) enjoy a healthy profit from the sales of the
software and the benefits associated with a sound and well-received product.
II. The end users (and those whose data are stored by the software) may be adversely
impacted, although specifically how and to what degree is unknown at this time. If
a sound product is shipped, they will enjoy the benefits associated with their new
purchase.
III. If used, supply chain partners may well be adversely affected if the bug goes
unnoticed, as they have to deal with customer complaints about the faulty software
and may suffer financially as a result of having to issue refunds. If the bug is
resolved prior to release, they too will enjoy the benefits of successful sales.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q5. What are the ethical issues?
▫ Many ethical issues are raised by this case.
1. Ben failed to act with honesty and integrity by covertly submitting known
faulty software. His competence and professionalism are in question for the
same reasons and his lack of respect for other stakeholders is evident by his
failure to advise anyone of his action.
2. Ben’s action will certainly cost him respect in the eyes of his employer and
his peers and may cause a lack of market trust for his employer. In
conclusion, Ben did not meet his duty to his employer and attempted to
avoid responsibility for his failures.
Can’t include these here because
they weren’t mentioned at Q3.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q6. What can be done about it?
Since the scenario has already occurred and presuming testing is not yet
complete, several options exist for Ben.
1. He could do nothing and hope his plan will work out in his favour.
2. He could secretly confide in the tester and ask that they delay testing his
module so he can finish it without anyone else knowing about it.
3. He could tell his manager what he’s done and accept whatever remedies are
forthcoming.
4. He could tell his manager what he’s done and then offer to work nights and
weekends to write the code.
5. He could resign before anyone finds out.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q7. What are the options?
1.
He could do nothing and hope his plan will work out in his favour.
Assuming his action went undetected, this would benefit Ben as he would escape any
negative consequences of not having finished his code on time. He will be able to finish
his code without anyone ever knowing about it. Either way, he would certainly have to
live with the knowledge of his deception. If the faulty module somehow slips through
to production, his action will almost certainly be discovered and the consequences may
be dire for a number of stakeholders.
2. He could secretly confide in the tester and ask that they delay testing his
module so he can finish it without anyone else knowing about it.
This option includes all the consequences of the preceding option, but compounds the
act by enlisting another person to aid on the cover-up. As a result, two people are now
involved and both may suffer consequences if the original act is discovered.
3. He could tell his manager what he’s done and accept whatever remedies
are forthcoming.
This option is the most honest as it does not seek to deceive and it eliminates the
possibility that the faulty module will progress through to production. Ben may suffer
some form of punishment from the company’s management, not to mention a
lowering in the degree of trust given by his manager, however, these are likely to be of
lesser degree than either of the other two options presented above.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q7. What are the options? (...cont)
4. He could tell his manager what he’s done and then offer to work nights
and weekends to write the code.
This option includes all the consequences of the preceding option , however, it offers a
considered solution to the problem and may have the beneficial effect of serving as a
self-imposed punishment which may preclude any punishment likely to have been
meted out by his Manager. The upside is that the faulty module will be completed with
no adverse effects on the production system or any other stakeholders. That said, there
may be some small financial cost to the company.
5. He could resign before anyone finds out.
This option may be considered by many to be the coward’s way out. Ben might think
that this is a good option and it’s reasonable to suspect that his motivation would be to
escape embarrassment and punishment rather than escaping detection. He may well
achieve that positive end, but the defective module will eventually be discovered and
he will be blamed for it. Almost certainly he will not receive a glowing reference and if
significant costs are incurred by the company as a result of his act, he may eventually
face legal remedies.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q8. Which option is best and why?
❑ Option 1 is purely egoistic, and by virtue of its deceptive nature, is unethical
from the perspective of deontological , social contract and virtue ethics.
Additionally, if Ben’s action is discovered, consequentialists would likely
agree that the negative consequences of such an act outweigh any benefit
Ben may gain.
❑ Option 2 is similarly deceptive, but also incites another person to join in the
deception, thus adversely impacting that person as well. Therefore, as this
option is as unethical as Option 1, it too is unacceptable.
❑ Although the most ethical course of action would have been for Ben to advise
his manager before deceptively submitting the incomplete module, the next
best thing would be Option 3, to tell his manager what he’s done and accept
whatever remedies are forthcoming. This is an honourable solution which
will certainly prevent high-cost consequences in the long term. It’s
reasonable to assume that most ethical theories would support this option,
even egoism, because any negative consequence to Ben would likely be lesser
and short-lived. From the perspective of virtue ethics, it clearly
demonstrates good character.
Analysing Ben’s case
Q8. Which option is best and why? (...cont)
❑ Option 5 is simply out of the question as a solution because the decision to
take it would be based purely on egoistic hedonism. I would argue, however,
that as the negative consequences may prove significant and long-lived, the
perceived egoistic benefit would not be realised in the long term and thus
would not ultimately satisfy the egoistic aim. A Kantian approach would
condemn such an option because of the impartiality and universality rules.
This option also fails to live up to the ideals of the ACS Code of Ethics, but
regardless, it does not ultimately solve the problem for any stakeholder.
❑ The best option for everyone concerned therefore, is Option 4.
Ben should tell his manager what he’s done and then offer to work
nights and weekends to write the code. This option is the most
honest and virtuous and it offers his manager an effective and
achievable way to solve the problem of the faulty module. It appears
to meet the tenets of almost the most significant ethical theories;
utilitarian, deontological, contract and virtue.
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
Assignment 2
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
“Facebook Tells people Where You Are”
Facebook is a free social networking service that lunched in February 2004 has over one
billion active users by September 2012. It lets a user to create profile and add others as a
friend and share photos, messages and other information’s. (“Facebook,” n.d.) Since the
lunch of the Facebook it has raised many privacy issues. As the networking site keep
introducing new features to keep them up more interesting and lucrative new privacy issues
are arising as well. One of their new feature is “Places”. It is a feature that allows users to
share their physical locations with their Facebook friends. It also lets them to identify friend’s
locations and visited places weather they have visited or not. Wherever they go they can use
‘check in’ options which tells the location they have checked in as well as they can tag their
friends which shows who they have checked in with. Even though, if they do not check in a
place with a friend they can still tag them which shows they are with that friends. (Fowler,
2010) Moreover, users can look through nearby venues, markets, restaurants, shops etc to
find out what other friends are around.
This features raised a great privacy concern to many organisations and individuals as it can
be a great threat to individual’s security as well as a great concern of individual’s privacy.
(Kiss, 2010) As any user can tag any of their friends and share their location with other
friends on Facebook without tagged users consent. This feature may jeopardize the tagged
persons privacy as well as security. Moreover, they do not even have to be physically with
the friend to be tagged which is another huge issue of the feature. This can be used to
embarrass or harm ones good reputations. Even though, users agreed to the Facebook policy
and lawfully they are not doing anything illegal, but it is very unethical as when people lose
their privacy in the society and sometimes exposed their private life to others that they do not
want to be seen by others. On the other hand, many advertising companies are using the
shared data without users consent which are being collected from Facebook and those data
has been using in advertisement purposes. Another issue is the same data are being used to
monitor user’s activities by individuals and by organisations. Even though, Facebook claims
that the default setting of the feature is ‘friend only’ which means the information will be
shared only with the friends by default. Users can remove the tag later on if they do not want
to share the information. So, they have certain controls over the feature. However, according
to the Electronic Privacy Information Centre and the American Civil Liberties Union of
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
Northern California said the control of the privacy settings of the feature is not enough to
minimize risks and privacy concerns. They also stated Facebook should provide a clear
privacy settings of “don’t allow” option when a friend first tag another friend rather than
allowing them to tag in the first place and later remove the tag. (Fowler, 2010) This feature is
directly or indirectly bringing harm to users which have impact on society as well.
Before analysing the ethical issues and implications, it is important to define what privacy is
and how it could be violated? “Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude
themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively”. Even
though, it may varies culture to culture but in general it is ones right to disclose themselves
from others what they think its personal and would be defended if shared. It is a choice of
sharing, storing and a way of leading that will not worry others life. ("Privacy", 2011) So,
when someone’s personal information’s, life style or certain information that they would not
want to be shared but somehow reveals by someone to others or something that reveals
without their consent is violation of one’s privacy. According to Deontology, “It is the study
of duties and rights. It focuses on the fundamental of human rights and the various entities
responsibilities towards these rights: right to know, right to privacy and right to property”
(Tavani, 2007). When Facebook shares user’s locations and places they have visited, it is
actually violating user’s privacy even though users agreed on some extent. User’s
information’s are their property and that cannot be shared with third party without their
consent.
According to utilitarianism, “It is when the action benefits all parties such as customer and
company plus the action is right if the benefit outweigh the overall cost involved” (Tavani,
2007). Even though the feature benefits both companies and users but it is still a concern of
privacy issue for many others. If most of the people are happy with the action and according
to utilitarianism the action is right, however, lack of knowledge on the consequences of the
action and desire of getting few benefits are few reasons behind their acceptance. On the
other hand, Facebook is playing an egoism role here as it maximise their benefits in various
ways while they ignore users privacy and security.
According to Kant’s categorical imperative “never treat people merely as a means to an end
but as an end in themselves (respect others)” (Tavani, 2007). Some of the information that
shared by the feature may not be disrespect for some but may be disrespect for many others.
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
People do not want to be tagged in everything they do with their friends and sometimes they
might be harmful for their self respects or even at workplaces.
From the ethical analysis, it is obvious that this new feature that Facebook has introduced has
privacy issues that may not be illegal but in many cases it is not ethical. Therefore, certain
action needs to be taken to address the issue. Such as, Facebook may completely remove the
feature for the overall wellbeing of the society as well as minimize the privacy issues. It can
give user absolute control over their privacy setting. Moreover, they need to monitor the
whole feature to make sure people’s privacy is not being invaded. People need to be educated
as well. They should know how to control the privacy and the importance of it as well as the
consequences of losing privacy in this information world. If more people get educated the
more people will be concern about their privacy and they will act according to what’s best for
them. Facebook needs to be more honest when it comes to store and share customer’s
information. They should not share customer information with third party for advertisement
purposes. There should be strict law regarding sharing customer information’s with third
parties.
There are number of things can be done to safeguard people’s privacy. Now the question is
what are the options Facebook may follow to address this situation? They can remove the
feature or give more control to users over privacy setting as well as educate them on the best
use of privacy settings. However, many will argue that removing the feature is not right
solution as it does have many benefits. Such as, people can find other friends around them, it
may assist to track or monitor people that may be good for society. In a large location where
it is hard to find friends, this feature may help to find them easily. (Kirschner, 2010) But
when it comes to privacy it is more ethical to address the situation in a way that it would not
grow in future. It’s like rather than cutting a tree from the top every day, cut the root.
To make both parties happy, I would recommend the second option which is giving users
absolute control over privacy settings and educate them. Users should be able to set their
privacy settings “don’t allow” tagging, controlling over timeline location history as well as
educating users so that they can decide how they would appropriately use it. This is a better
solution for both users and Facebook company as the company can still implement the feature
without compromising the privacy of users where else users would be happy as well as they
will choose to use it or not. Moreover, user’s that doesn’t want to be tagged they could avoid
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
being tagged by friends. More users will be aware of the implications of this feature as well
by being educated of the features pros and cons.
To sum up, it is very important to understand technology is to serve human being not the
other way round. If any technological advancement has bad impact on society weather it is
ethical or unethical, legal or illegal it should be illuminated for the betterment of the society.
If that is not possible then it should be addressed carefully to minimize the bad affect of it
whether it is security, privacy or any other issues. So does, Facebooks new feature “Places”
needs to be addressed seriously to confirm that technology is still serving the humanity for
their betterment, not the other way round.
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
Bibliography:
Fowler, G. A. (2010). Facebook Fights Privacy Concerns. In The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703579804575441871011613474.html
Kirschner, J. (2010). Facebook Places Tells Friends Where You Are - Here's How it Works. In
Techlicious. Retrieved from http://www.techlicious.com/blog/facebook-places-tells-friendswhere-you-are-heres-how- it-works/
Kiss, J. (2010). Facebook Places Location Tool Unveiled, Sparking Fresh Privacy Concerns. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/19/facebookplaces-location-tool-unveiled
Tavani, H. T. (2007). Ethics and Technology: Ethical issues in an age of information and
communication technology. Hoboken: John Willey.
unknown. (2011). Privacy. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy
unknown. (n.d). Facebook. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
Ethics Technique
1) What is going on?
Facebook has introduced a new feature which they named ‘Places’. It lets people to share
with others their location and places they have visited. This feature raises lot of concerns
regarding user’s privacy.
2) What are the facts?
• The new features that Facebook has introduced allow users to share their locations
and places they have visited.
• It raises issue about user’s privacy.
• Advertiser using users information without their consent
• It has been using to monitor users activity without users authorisation.
• Facebook claims the default setting of the feature is ‘Friend’ which means the
information will be shared only with friends by default.
3) What are the issues?
• Violating others privacy even though lawfully it’s not illegal.
• Sharing unauthorised information with third parties.
• Unauthorised monitoring.
4) Who is affected?
• Facebook users.
5) What are the ethical issues and implications?
• “Deontology is the study of duties and rights. It focuses on the fundamental of human
rights and the various entities responsibilities towards these rights: right to know,
right to privacy and right to property” (Tavani, 2007)
• When Facebooks shares user’s locations and visiting places it is violating user’s
privacy even though users agreed on some extent.
• User’s information’s are user’s property and that cannot be shared with third party
without their consent.
•
“Utilitarianism is when the action benefits all parties such as customer and company
plus the action is right if the benefit outweigh the overall cost involved” (Tavani,
2007)
•
Even though the feature benefits both companies and users but it is still a concern of
privacy issue for many others. May be maximum people are happy with the action
and according to utilitarianism the action is right. However, lack of knowledge on the
consequences of the action and desire of getting few benefits are few reasons behind
their acceptance. On the other hand, Facebook is playing an egoism role here as it
maximise their benefits in various ways.
ITC 331- Ethics and Professional Practice
•
According to Kant’s categorical imperative “never treat people merely as a means to
an end but as an end in themselves (respect others)”.
•
Some of the information that shared by the feature may not be disrespect for some but
may be disrespect for many others. People do not want to be tagged in everything’s
they do with their friends and some are harmful for their self respect.
6) What can be done about it?
• Facebook can completely remove the feature or give users more control over privacy
setting.
• They should educate users regarding strong security settings and its importance and
consequences.
• They should avoid sharing data with third parties for any kind of advertisement
purpose or monitoring purpose without users consent.
7) What options are there?
• Completely remove the feature from the Facebook.
• Give users absolute control over privacy settings.
• Educate users.
8) Which option is best and why?
Giving users absolute control over privacy settings and educating them is the best solution to
address this ethical issue. It will make both parties happy. Facebook can still have the feature
where users get more privacy control and being educated will assist them to aware of their
privacy and rights.
An explanation of the Doing Ethics Technique
Graham R Seach
Simpson, C. R., Nevile, L., & Burmeister, O. K. (2003). Doing ethics: A universal technique in an
accessibility context. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), 127-133.
The 'Doing Ethics' technique (DET) is a process for analysing ethical issues in any scenario. It doesn't
guarantee that what you come up with will be the best solution, but it does help you to think
ethically. That said, I understand that the technique may seem a little vague and perhaps lacking
guidance. To that end, the following might help you to understand how to apply the technique in
order to better understand ethical analysis.
To gain the most from the technique, you must explore and answer all eight questions in the order
in which they are posed. Each question stands alone and you cannot take the view that because you
have given information in response to one question that you can omit the same information from
subsequent questions.
Q1. What's going on?
This is a synopsis of what the case is all about. It is written in your own words, and can be taken from
a variety of perspectives, for example, from the perspective of a person raising a complaint, in which
case, it is a synopsis of the complaint. It can be taken from the perspective of an uninvolved
observer, in which case, it is an outline of what was observed, without going into too much detail.
Where you see multiple perspectives, you should describe them here. This question should target a
reader who has no knowledge of the case at hand, and is a brief outline of the case.
Q2. What are the facts?
This is a descriptive list of all the facts of the case. It doesn't just describe the case, but lists all the
facts as they are known (from all sources and perspectives), and also what one might reasonably
consider to be possibilities. For example, if a person was raising a complaint, Question 1 would
outline their complaint, and Question 2 would provide the detailed facts and the evidence to both
support and refute the claims (facts). All facts listed here must be supported by credible evidence, of
which the case itself is one source. If you choose, you may optionally assign a credibility weighting to
each fact, to help with later analysis.
Q3. What are the ethical and non-ethical issues?
This is a list of ALL the issues that are involved in the case, whether they be ethical, legal, social or
otherwise. In Question 5 we extract only the ethical issues for further analysis, but for now, simply
list and describe every relevant issue you can think of. This is probably the most difficult and
important question to get right, because Question 5 can only include the ethical that you have raised
here in Question 3. Therefore, this question must be a complete and comprehensive list of ALL the
issues.
Q4. Who is affected?
This is a list of all the stakeholders (people and entities) involved in the case. You should not restrict
the list to those stakeholders specifically named in the case; moreover, you must consider who/what
else might be affected by the issues listed at Question 3, and include them regardless of the degree
to which they may be affected. In this question, you must describe how each stakeholder is affected,
both positively and negatively, and you may optionally comment on the degree of effect. In
answering this question, you must think broadly to arrive at a comprehensive list of stakeholders.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?
For this question, you must extract only the ethical issues identified at Question 3. You cannot add
any issue that was not listed at Question 3. Discuss the ethical issues in terms of classical ethical
theory, relevant codes of ethics/codes of conduct, and discuss the implications of each issue on the
nominated stakeholders, relevant industries, and on the community in general. You must ensure to
support any statement or claim you make with credible evidence.
Q6. What can be done about it?
This question elicits a general idea of what can be done to resolve the case, whether those ideas are
practical, possible, or not. Describe in your own words generally what kind of resolutions there
might be. You need not go into great detail to answer this question, as its purpose is to provide a
basis for answering Questions 7 and 8, but you do need to think broadly and laterally to come up
with several alternatives - at least four. Be creative; the most obvious courses of action are not
always the only ones.
Q7. What are the options?
This question requires that you list and describe (in detail) all the possible options that might be
available to resolve the case. This question is based upon the alternatives you described in Question
6, and your responses here can only include your alternatives from Question 6. It is possible that not
all the options will result in a positive outcome for all stakeholders, so you must describe the
perceived positive and negative outcomes of each option. List and describe at least three different
options. The answer you give at Question 8 can only be one of the options given here at Question 7.
Q8. Which option is best - and why?
In answering this question, you need to assess which of the options described in Question 7 is the
best. You are recommending a single option from those described in Question 7. You must argue
one option against the other, weighing up their benefits and detriments, providing a solid basis in
fact and reasonable (and supportable) conjecture. In other words, you must clearly demonstrate
why your chosen option is better than any of the others. You must add some of your own
intellectual property, as an ICT professional, into answering this question. You may reiterate
arguments from previous questions to help argue your case.
What’s going
on?
Which option
is best – and
why?
What are the
facts?
What options
are there?
What are the
issues?
What can be
done about
it?
Who is
affected?
What are the
ethical issues
and
implications?
Purchase answer to see full
attachment