Who are the stakeholders in this and how might they be affect by Apple’s decision?
A stakeholder is an individual or group that has an interest in an organization or company (Gilbert, 2016a, p. 59). The stakeholders in this case are Apple, the FBI, and the general public.
- Apple may be affected negatively if it is seen as cooperating with the FBI, as this could damage its reputation. Apple may be seen as cooperating with the FBI if it provides the FBI with access to the iPhone in question. This could damage Apple’s reputation because some people may see Apple as helping the government to invade people’s privacy.
- The FBI may be affected negatively if Apple does not cooperate, as this could hinder its ability to investigate potential terrorist threats. The FBI may not be able to investigate potential terrorist threats if it does not have access to the iPhone in question. This could hinder the FBI’s ability to protect the public from terrorist attacks.
- The general public may be affected negatively if Apple does not cooperate, as this could make it more difficult for the FBI to protect them from terrorist attacks. The general public may be at greater risk of terrorist attacks if the FBI does not have access to the iPhone in question. This could make it more difficult for the FBI to protect the public from terrorist attacks.
What decision benefits the greatest number of these stakeholders?
The decision that benefits the greatest number of stakeholders is for Apple to cooperate with the FBI. This decision would allow the FBI to investigate potential terrorist threats and protect the public (Gilbert, 2016a, p. 54).
- Apple’s reputation is important to the company. If Apple is seen as cooperating with the FBI, it may damage its reputation. However, if Apple does not cooperate with the FBI, it may also damage its reputation. Some people may see Apple as helping the government to invade people’s privacy. Other people may see Apple as putting the public at risk by not cooperating with the FBI.
- The public has an interest in being protected from terrorist attacks. If Apple does not cooperate with the FBI, it may make it more difficult for the FBI to protect the public from terrorist attacks.
Do you agree with the decision that utilitarianism leads you to? Why or why not?
In utilitarianism, the moral act is the one that creates the most happiness or good for the greatest number of people (Gilbert, 2016a, p. 48). The utilitarian theory positions the best course of action as that which maximizes utility. When it comes to this case, the best course of action is the one that benefits the largest number of stakeholders. I think cooperating with the FBI is the best decision for all stakeholders.
Does apply the test in Rights and Duties or Fairness and Justice lead you to a different answer?
As social concepts, fairness and justice are appropriate frameworks for thinking about ethical intentions (Gilbert, 2016c, p. 85). It is common in the discussion of rights and duties to proclaim rights, and acknowledge duties occasionally, but the discussion is often unclear once it goes beyond declaring rights and acknowledging duties (Gilbert, 2016b, p. 67). In my opinion, applying the test in Fairness and Justice or Rights and Duties does not result in a different conclusion. I think cooperating with the FBI is the best decision for all stakeholders. It allows the FBI to investigate potential terrorist threats and protect the public. Additionally, it keeps Apple’s reputation intact.
References:
Gilbert, J. (2016a). Chapter 4: Utilitarianism. Ethics for Managers: Philosophical Foundations and Business Realities. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=cc3ef6b5-d67d-4c79-a74f-8648937bf38e%40redis&ppid=pp_48&vid=0&format=EB
Gilbert, J. (2016b). Chapter 5: Rights and Duties. Ethics for Managers : Philosophical Foundations and Business Realities. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=69b4c7f6-79d0-4f7d-8fd5-7ee2e4d539da%40redis&ppid=pp_66&vid=0&format=EB
Gilbert, J. (2016c). Chapter 6: Fairness and Justice. Ethics for Managers: Philosophical Foundations and Business Realities. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/eds/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=d62d0e5f-a3ab-4ab0-96d6-f7715a6aff2f%40redis&ppid=pp_83&vid=0&format=EB
Professors Response:
Aloha Emily,
I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the three ethical frameworks of Utilitarianism, Rights and Duties, and Fairness and Justice. You have done an excellent job outlining the key stakeholders involved and how their interests could be affected by Apple’s decision. Your application of the utilitarian perspective, focusing on the greatest good for the greatest number of stakeholders, is compelling. It’s interesting that you found similar conclusions when applying Rights and Duties and Fairness and Justice, suggesting that Apple should cooperate with the FBI to potentially prevent harm and ensure justice.
One challenging aspect of ethical decisions, however, is that there can often be conflict between different ethical frameworks. For example, a rights-based approach might focus more on individual privacy rights, which could lead to a different conclusion. To further our discussion, I would like to challenge you to explore this conflict. From a strictly rights-based perspective, could there be an argument against Apple providing access to the iPhone? If so, how might we reconcile this with the other perspectives you’ve considered?
Looking forward to your response.
