Computer Ethics
9/12/2020 Print – Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)
https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 1/4
Quiz 3/Week 3 – Due Sep 13, 2020 11:59 PM
Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)
CSCI 415 Ethics, Law and Cybersecurity
Chapter 3 Quiz
NAME: _______________________________DATE: _________________
Chapter 3 Quiz 3
Instructions: There are two (2) topic areas listed below that are designed to measure
your knowledge level specific to learning outcome (LO 3) shown in your course syllabus.
Please provide appropriate responses in essay form for both. In most cases the topic
area has several components. Each must be addressed to properly satisfy
requirements.
State-wide and in most professional industries, there has been a mandate that college
students be more proficient in their writing. While this is not a writing class, all writing
assignments will be graded for grammar, syntax and typographical correctness to help
address this mandate.
Pay attention to what you are being asked to do (see Grading Rubric below). For
example, to describe does not mean to list, but to tell about or illustrate in more than
two or three sentences, providing appropriate arguments for your responses using
theories discussed in our text. Be sure to address all parts of the topic question as
most have multiple parts. A verifiable current event (less than 4 years old) relevant to at
least one of the topics you respond to is a fundamental component of your quiz as well.
You cannot use information from the text book or any book/article by the author of
the text book as a current event. Make sure that your reference has a date of
publication. For each chapter quiz and final quiz you are required to find and include at
least one reference and reference citation to a current event less than 4 years old (a reference
with no date (n.d.) is not acceptable) in answer to at least one question. This requires a
reference citation in the text of your answer and a reference at the end of the question to
which the reference applies. You must include some information obtained from the reference
9/12/2020 Print – Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)
https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 2/4
in your answer. The references must be found on the internet and you must include a URL in
your reference so that the reference can be verified.
You should type your responses directly under the appropriate question. Be sure to
include your name on your quiz. Only the first two (2) questions with answers will be
graded. Include your name in the document filename. Your completed quiz must be
uploaded into the appropriate eCollege Dropbox, no later than 11:59pm on the due
date. Do well.
1. Based on what you have learned in this chapter and using appropriate
components, properly construct an argument to: (1) support or refute the view
that all undergraduate students should be required to take a course in
cyberethics; and (2) apply the seven steps (in Section 3.8) to your argument.
Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your rationale in
support of your responses (comprehension)
2. Using appropriate components construct an argument for or against the view
that privacy protection should be improved in e-commerce transactions. Next
evaluate your arguments against the rules for valid, inductive, and fallacious
arguments. Does your argument contain any of the common or informal
fallacies discussed in Section 3.9? If so, elaborate. Please elaborate (beyond a
yes or no answer) and provide your rationale in support of your responses
(knowledge)
Grading Rubric for Quizzes
ng criterion Unit Points Total
Uploaded to correct Dropbox 2 2
Submitted on time 15 15
Document Filename:
9/12/2020 Print – Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)
https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 3/4
Quiz 3/Week 3
Due September 13 at 11:59 PM Starts Sep 7, 2020 9:00 AM
Your Last Name,first and middle initial with correct quiz number 5 5
(Example only: Creider_RD_q1)
Rationally expressed opinions, experiences (personal or observed), 8
arguments and premises (where appropriate) to support responses
(did not simply restate/summarize author/textbook
Clearly presented classical ethics theories relative to topic 8
Included URL for appropriate verifiable current event 12 28
(i.e., example of topic being discussed WITH EXPLANATION)
NOTE: Must be less than 4 years old
Grammatically correct and appropriate tone 10
(professional, non offensive language)
Typographically correct 10 20
Included full citations as needed 3
Used correct APA format 7 10
Addressed each item within selected topic area 20 20
Maximum grade 100 100
NOTE: POINTS WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM TOTAL ASSIGNMENT GRADE IF EACH
QUESTION YOU SELECTED IS NOT INCLUDED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE EACH
ANSWER.
9/12/2020 Print – Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)
https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 4/4 Ethics and Morality
The term Ethics is derived from Ethos
(Greek), and Morality from Mores (Latin).
Both terms translate roughly into notions
affecting custom, habit, and behavior.
Ethics is defined as the study of morality,
which raises two questions:
1) What is morality?
2) What is the study of morality?
Moral Dilemmas and Moral Issues
Before defining morality and a moral
system, it is worth noting that not every
moral issue (or moral problem) that arises is
(also) necessarily a moral dilemma.
We sometimes tend to confuse the phrases
moral issue and moral dilemma.
A dilemma is a situation where one must
choose between two undesirable options,
which often leads to ones having to choose
between the lesser of two evils.
Moral Dilemmas vs. Moral Issues
(Continued
It is also important to note that not
every dilemma is moral in nature.
The example of the runaway trolley
(Scenario 2-1 in the textbook) illustrates
a moral dilemma.
Most of the moral concerns/problem
that we examine in this text are moral
issues (as opposed to moral dilemmas).
What is Morality?
Morality can be defined as a system of
rules for guiding human conduct, and
principles for evaluating those rules.
Two points are worth noting in this definition:
i. morality is a system;
ii. it is a system comprised of moral rules and
principles.
Moral rules can be understood as “rules of
conduct,” which are very similar to “policies.”
Rules of Conduct as Policies
James Moor (2004) notes that policies can range
from formal laws to informal, implicit guidelines
for actions.
Moor suggests that every act can be viewed as
an instance of a policy.
There are two kinds of rules of conduct:
1) Directives for guiding our conduct as individuals
(at the micro-level)
2) Social Policies framed at the macro-level.
Directives
Directives are rules (of conduct) that guide our
actions, and thus direct us to behave in certain
ways.
Rules such as
“Do not steal”
“Do not harm others”
are examples of rules of conduct that direct us in
our individual moral choices at the “micro-ethi-
cal” level (i.e., the level of individual behavior).
Social Policies
Some rules of conduct guide our actions at the
“macro-ethical” level by helping us frame social
policies.
Rules such as
Proprietary software should not be copied
Software that can be used to invade the privacy of
users should not be developed”
are both examples of rules of conduct that arise out
of our social policies.
Notice the correlation between directives and social
policies (e.g., rules involving stealing).
Principles
The rules of conduct in a moral system are
evaluated by way of standards called
principles.
For example, the principle of “social utility
(i.e., promoting the greatest good for the
greatest number) can be used to evaluate a
social policy such as
Proprietary software should not be copied
without permission.”
Principles (Continued)
In the previous example, the principle of
social-utility functioned as a kind of “litmus
test” for determining whether the policy
pertaining to proprietary software could be
justified on moral grounds.
A policy, X, could be justified (on utilitarian
grounds) by showing that following Policy X
(i.e., not allowing the unauthorized copying
of software) would produce more overall
social utility (greater good for society).
Figure 2-1: Basic Components of
a Moral System
Rules of Conduct
(Action-guiding rules, in the form
of either directives or social
policies)
Principles of Evaluation
(Evaluative standards used
to justify rules of conduct)
two types Examples include principles such
as of social utility and justice as
fairness
Rules for guiding the
actions of individuals
(micro-level ethical
rules)
Rules for establishing
social policies
(macro-level ethical rules)
Examples include directives
such as:”Do not steal” and
“Do not harm others.”
Examples include social policies such as:
“Software should be protected and
“Privacy should be respected.”
Bernard Gerts Scheme of a Moral
System
According to Bernard Gert (2005),
morality is a system that is:
like a game, but more like an informal
game (e.g., a game of cards)
public (open and accessible to all)
rational (open to reason)
impartial (as illustrated in Gerts
blindfold of justice).
Table 2-1: Four Features of
Gerts Moral System
Public
The rules are
known to all
of the
members.
Informal
The rules are
informal, not
like formal
laws in a legal
system.
Rational
The system is
based on
principles of
logical reason
accessible to all
its members.
Impartial
The system is
not partial to
any one group
or individual.
Figure 2-2: Components of a
Moral System
Grounds for justifying moral principles Religion Philosophy Law
Principles of Evaluation
Rules of Conduct
Moral principles
and rules
Source of moral rules Core Values
The Role of Values in a Moral
System
The term value comes from the Latin valere,
which translates roughly into having worth or
being of worth (Pojman, 2006).
Values can be viewed as objects of our
desires or interests.
Examples of values include very general
notions such happiness, love, freedom, etc.
Moral principles are ultimately derived from a
society’s system of values.
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Values
Philosophers distinguish between two types
of values: intrinsic and instrumental values.
Any value that serves some further end or
good is called an instrumental value because
it is tied to some external standard.
For example, automobiles, computers, and
money are goods that have instrumental
value.
Values such as life and happiness are intrinsic
because they are valued for their own sake.
Core Values
Another approach to cataloguing values is to
distinguish core values, some of which may
or may not also be intrinsic values, from
other kinds of values.
Moor (2004) argues that values such as life,
happiness, and autonomy are core values
because they are basic to a society’s thriving
and perhaps even to a society’s survival.
Not all core values are also moral values.
Moral vs. Non-Moral Values
Morals and values are are not necessarily
identical.
Values can be either moral or non-moral.
Reason informs us that it is in our interest to
develop values that promote our own
survival, happiness, and flourishing as
individuals.
When used to further only our own self-
interests, these values are not necessarily
moral values.
Moral Values
Once we bring in the notion of impartiality,
we begin to take the “moral point of view.”
When we frame the rules of conduct in a
moral system, we articulate a system of
values having to do with notions such as
autonomy, fairness, justice, etc., which are
moral values.
Our basic moral values are derived from core
non-moral values.
Three Schemes for Grounding the
Evaluative Rules in a Moral System
The principles are grounded in one of three
different kinds of schemes:
religion;
law;
philosophical ethics.
We will see how a particular moral principle
or rule e.g., Do not steal can be
justified from the vantage point of each
scheme.
Approach #1: Grounding Moral
Principles in a Religious System
Consider the following rationale for why
stealing is morally wrong:
Stealing is wrong because it offends God
or because it violates one of God’s (Ten)
Commandments.
From the point of view of institutionalized
religion, stealing is wrong because of it
offends God or because it violates the
commands of a supreme authority.
Approach #2: Grounding Moral
Principles in a Legal System
An alternative rationale would be:
Stealing is wrong because it violates the law.
Here the grounds for determining why
stealing is wrong are not tied to religion.
If stealing violates a law in a particular nation
or jurisdiction, then the act of stealing can be
declared to be wrong independent of any
religious beliefs that one may or may not
happen to have.
Approach #3: Grounding Moral Principles
in a Philosophical System of Ethics
A third way of approaching the question is:
Stealing is wrong because it is wrong
(independent of any form of external authority or
any external sanctions).
On this view, the moral “rightness” or
“wrongness” of stealing is not grounded in
some external authoritative source.
It does not appeal to an external authority,
either theological or legal, for justification.
Approach # 3 Continued
Many philosophers and ethicists have argued
that, independent of either supernatural or
legal authorities, reason alone is sufficient to
show that stealing is wrong.
They argue that reason can inform us that
there is something either in the act of
stealing itself, or in the consequences that
result from this kind of act, that makes
stealing morally wrong.
Approach # 3 Continued
In the case of both law and religion, specific
sanctions against stealing exist in the form of
punishment.
In the case of (philosophical) ethics, the only
sanction would be in the form of social
disapproval, and possibly social ostracism.
For example, there is no punishment in a
formal sense.
External conditions or factors, in the form of
sanctions, are irrelevant.
The Method of Philosophical
Ethics
The method philosophers use to analyze moral issues
is normative, in contrast to the descriptive method
that is used by social scientists.
Sociological and anthropological studies are
descriptive because they describe or report how
people in various cultures and groups behave with
respect to the rules of a moral system.
For example, a sociologist might report that people
who live in nations along the Pacific Rim believe that
it is morally permissible to make copies of proprietary
software for personal use.
Philosophical Studies vs. Scientific
Studies
Philosophical studies and scientific studies are similar
in that both require that a consistent methodological
scheme be used to verify hypotheses and theories.
These verification schemes must satisfy criteria of
rationality and objectivity (or impartiality).
Philosophical studies also differ from scientific studies
because scientists typically conduct experiments in a
laboratory to confirm or refute a hypothesis.
Philosophers have no physical laboratory to test
ethical theories and claims; they evaluate a claim or
thesis by testing it against the rules of logical
argumentation (see Chapter 3).
Ethicists vs. Moralists
Ethicists study morality from the perspective
of philosophical methodology and they appeal
to logical arguments to justify their positions.
Moralists often claim to have all of the
answers regarding morality, and often they
exhibit characteristics that have been
described as “preachy” and “judgmental.”
Some moralists may have a particular moral
agenda to advance.
Ethicists vs. Moralists (Continued)
Ethicists, in using the philosophical method to
analyze and investigate moral issues, must
remain open to different sides of a dispute.
An ethicists primary focus is on the study of
morality and the application of theories.
Ethicists approach the study of moral issues
and controversies by way of standards that
are both rational (based on logic) and
impartial (open to others to verify).
Discussion Stoppers as “Roadblocks”
to Moral Discourse
Discussion stoppers can be articulated in terms
of the following four questions:
1. People disagree about morality; so how can we
reach agreement on moral issues?
2. Who am I/Who are we to judge others and to
impose my/our values on others?
3. Isn’t morality simply a private matter?
4. Isn’t morality simply a matter that different
cultures and groups should determine for
themselves?
Discussion Stopper # 1: People Disagree on
Solutions to Moral Issues
People who hold this view fail to recognize:
i. Experts in other fields of study, such as science
and math., also disagree on what the correct
answers to certain questions are.
ii. There is common agreement about answers to
some moral questions.
iii. People do not always distinguish between
“disagreements about factual matters” and
“disagreements on general principles” in
disputes involving morality.
Discussion Stopper # 2: Who am I to
Judge Others?
We need to distinguish between:
a) persons making judgments and
persons being judgmental, and
b) judgments involving condemnations
vs. judgments involving evaluations.
Also, we are sometimes required to
make judgments about others.
Discussion Stopper # 3: Ethics is
Simply a Private Matter
Many people assume that morality is
essentially personal in nature and that
morality must therefore be simply a
private matter.
Private morality” is essentially an
oxymoron or contradictory notion.
Morality is a public phenomenon (Gert).
Discussion Stopper # 4: Morality is Simply a
Matter for Individual Cultures to Decide
According to this view, a moral system is
dependent on, or relative to, a particular culture
or group.
There are some very serious problems with this
view, which is called ethical relativism.
It is useful to distinguish between two positions
involving relativism:
cultural relativism,
moral relativism.
Discussion Stopper #4 Continued
– Cultural Relativism
At the base of cultural relativism is the
following assumption:
(A) Different cultures have different belief
systems about what constitutes morally
right and wrong behavior.
Note that (A) is essentially a descriptive
thesis.
Cultural Relativism Continued
Although Thesis (A) the view that different
groups have different conceptions about what is
morally right and morally wrong behavior is
widely accepted, some social scientists believe
that the reported differences between cultures
have been greatly exaggerated.
Other social scientists, as well as some philoso-
phers and historians, suggest that all cultures
may recognize some universal core moral values
(see, for example, Herodotus and Chomsky).
Cultural Relativism (Continued)
Even if cultural relativism (Thesis A) is true, we
can ask if (A) logically implies the claim in (B):
(B) We should not morally evaluate the
behavior of people in cultures other than our
own (because what is morally right or wrong
can only be determined only by some culture
or group, as there is no universal standard).
Note that (B), unlike (A), is a normative thesis.
Also note that moving from (A) to (B) is a move
from cultural relativism to moral relativism.
Moral Relativism
The Moral relativists argument makes a
questionable move from premise (A), which is
a descriptive (or empirical) claim, to the
conclusion (B), which is a normative claim:
Premise: Different cultures have different
beliefs about what is right and wrong.
Conclusion: We should not morally
evaluate the behavior of people in cultures
other than our own.
Moral Relativism (Continued)
Many moral relativists mistakenly assume that
if there is no universal moral standard, then
in matters of morality, anything goes.
Does this follow (logically)? Is it coherent?
Can any culture to decide to do anything it
wants, merely because the majority of the
population agrees to doing it (e.g., genocide)?
The moral relativists view is essentially incoher-
ent and inconsistent from a logical perspective.
Moral Relativism (Continued)
Does it follow that people who reside outside a
particular culture, X, can never make any judgments
about the behavior of those who live within X?
Consider that in many tribes in West Africa, a ritual of
female circumcision is still practiced.
While this practice has been a tradition for many
generations, some females living in tribes that still
perform this ritual on teenage girls have objected.
Many people who live outside these cultures
condemn this practice as it is carried out today.
Are they wrong in condemning this practice?
Moral Relativism (Continued)
Assume that the majority of residents in
Culture X approve of female circumcision.
Would it be inappropriate for those who lived
outside of West Africa to claim that the
treatment of young women in those tribes is
morally wrong, simply because they are not
members of Culture X?
If we embrace that view, wouldnt it follow
that a culture can devise any moral scheme it
wishes as long as the majority approve it?
Moral Absolutism (as an
Alternative to Moral Relativism)
If we reject moral relativism, must we accept moral
absolutism?
Moral absolutism claims that there is only one uniquely
correct answer to every moral problem and only one
universal standard for all cultures.
The moral absolutists position is also controversial.
One way to avoid the trap between moral relativism and
moral absolutism is to embrace moral objectivism.
Moral objectivism asserts that (for at least some moral
issues) there can be more than one acceptable answer, so
long as rational standards apply.
Moral Objectivism vs. Moral
Absolutism (Continued)
Recall that Gert notes that while there
may not be only one uniquely correct
answer to every moral problem, there
are can be incorrect answers to many of
these problems.
So, moral objectivism can avoid the
moral relativists assumption that
anything goes in matters of morality.
Table 2-2 Summary of Logical Flaws
in the Discussion Stoppers
Stopper #2
Who am I to judge
others?
__________________
1. Fails to distinguish
between the act of
judging and being a
judgmental person.
2. Fails to distinguish
between judging as
condemning and
judging as evaluating.
3. Fails to recognize
that sometimes we are
required to make
judgments
Stopper #3
Ethics is imply a
private matter.
_________________
1. Fails to recognize that
morality is
essentially a public
system.
2. Fails to note that
personally-based
morality can cause
major harm to
others.
3. Confuses moral
choices with
individual or
personal
preferences.
Stopper #1
People disagree on
solutions to moral
issues.
__________________
1. Fails to recognize
that experts in many
areas disagree on key
issues in their fields.
2. Fails to recognize
that there are many
moral issues on which
people agree.
3. Fails to distinguish
between
disagreements about
principles and
disagreements about
facts.
Stopper #4
Morality is simply a
matter for individual
cultures to decide.
___________________
1. Fails to distinguish
between descriptive and
normative claims about
morality.
2. Assumes that people
can never reach
common agreement on
some moral principles.
3. Assumes that a
system is moral because
a majority in a culture
decides it is moral.
The Structure of Ethical Theories
An essential feature of theory in general is
that it guides us in our investigations.
In science, theory provides us with some
general principles and structures to analyze
our data.
The purpose of ethical theory, like scientific
theory, is to provide a framework for
analyzing issues.
Ideally, a good theory should be coherent,
consistent, comprehensive, and systematic.
The Structure of Ethical Theories
(Continued)
To be coherent, the individual elements of
the theory must fit together to form a unified.
For a theory to be consistent, its component
parts cannot contradict each other.
To be comprehensive, a theory must be able
to apply broadly to a wide range of actions.
And to be systematic, the theory cannot
simply address individual symptoms peculiar
to specific cases, while ignoring general
principles that would apply in similar cases.
Why Do we Need Ethical
Theories?
Ethical theories can help us to avoid inconsistent
reasoning in our thinking about moral issues and
moral dilemmas.
Recall again Scenario 2-1 (in the textbook), but now
imagine a variation of it in which victims of the trolley
accident are taken to the hospital and only limited
resources are available to the accident victims.
Which moral principle would you use in deciding who
receives medical assistance and who does not?
Can you also apply that principal consistently across
similar cases?
Four Kinds of Ethical Theories
For our purposes, we organize ethical
theories into four broad categories:
Consequence-based,
Duty-based,
Contract-based,
Character-based.
Consequence-based Ethical
Theories
Some argue that the primary goal of a moral
system is to produce desirable consequences
or outcomes for its members.
On this view, the consequences (i.e., the
ends achieved) of actions and policies that
provide the ultimate standard against which
moral decisions must be evaluated.
So if choosing between acts A or B, the
morally correct action will be the one that
produces the most desirable outcome.
Consequence-based Theories
(Continued)
In determining the best ourcome, we
can ask the question, whose outcome?
Utilitarians argue that it is the
consequences of the greatest number
of individuals, or the majority, in a
given society that deserve consideration
in moral deliberation.
Consequence-based Theories:
(Utilitarianism Continued)
According to the utilitarian theory:
An individual act (X) or a social policy
(Y) is morally permissible if the
consequences that result from (X) or
(Y) produce the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number of
persons affected by the act or policy.
Consequence-based Theories:
(Utilitarianism Continued)
Utilitarians draw on two key points in
defending their theory:
I. the principle of social utility should be
used to determine morality;
II. social utility can be measured by the
amount of happiness produced for
society as a whole.
Utilitarianism (continued)
Utilitarians such as Jeremy
Bentham assume:
a) all people desire happiness;
b) happiness is an intrinsic good
that is desired for its own sake.
Utilitarianism (continued)
According to John Stuart Mill:
The only possible proof showing that
something is audible is that people
actually hear it; the only possible
proof that something is visible is that
people actually see it; and the only
possible proof that something is des-
ired is that people actually desire it.
Act Utilitarianism
According to act utilitarians:
An act, X, is morally permissible if
the consequences produced by
doing X result in the greatest good
for the greatest number of persons
affected by X.
Criticism of Act Utilitarianism
Utilianiarisms critics reject the emphasis on
the consequence of individual acts.
They point out that in our day-to-day
activities, we tend not to deliberate on each
individual action as if that action were unique.
Instead, they argue that we are inclined to
deliberate on the basis of certain principles or
general rules that guide our behavior.
Criticism of Act Utilitarianism
(continued)
Consider some principles that may guide your
behavior as a consumer.
Each time that you enter a store, do you ask
yourself the following question: Shall I steal
item X in at this particular time?”
Or, have you already formulated certain
general principles that guide your individual
actions, such as a principle to the effect: “It is
never morally permissible to steal.”
Rule Utilitarianism
Some utilitarians argue that it is the
consequences that result from following rules
or principles, not the consequences of
individual acts, that are important.
According to rule utilitarianism:
An act, X, is morally permissible if the
consequences of following the general rule
(Y), of which act X is an instance, would
bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number.
Criticism of Rule Utilitarianism
Critics tend to attack one or both of the
following aspects of utilitarian theory:
I. morality is ultimately tied to happiness or
pleasure;
II. morality can ultimately be determined by
consequences (of either acts or policies).
Critics of utilitarianism ague that morality can
be grounded neither in consequences nor in
happiness.
Immanuel Kant argued that morality must
ultimately be grounded in the concept of duty
or obligations that humans have to one
another.
For Kant, morality can never be grounded in
the consequences of human actions.
Thus, in Kants view, morality has nothing to
do with the promotion of happiness or the
achievement of desirable consequences.
Duty-based Ethical Theories
(Continued)
Kant rejects utilitarianism in particular, and all
consequentialist ethical theories in general.
For example, he points out that, in some
instances, performing our duties may result in
our being unhappy and may not necessarily lead
to consequences that are considered desirable.
Theories in which the notion of duty, or
obligation, serve a foundation for morality are
called deontological theories.
They derive their meaning from the Greek root
deon, which means duty.
Duty-based Ethical Theories
(Continued)
Kant defends his ethical theory on
the grounds that:
1) humans are rational, autonomous
agents;
2) human beings are ends-in-
themselves, and not means to
ends.
Rule Deontology
For Kant, morality conforms to a standard or
objective test, a principle that he calls the
Categorical Imperative.
Kant’s imperative has a number of variations,
one of which directs us to:
Act always on that maxim or principle (or
rule) which ensures that all individuals will
be treated as ends-in-themselves and
never merely as a means to an end.
Rule Deontology (Continued)
Another variation of the Categorical
Imperative can be paraphrased as:
Always act on that maxim or
principle (or rule) which can be
universally binding, without
exception, for all human beings.
Categorical Imperative
Kant believed that if every
