Sample Solution

My personal ethical philosophy is rooted in Kantian ethics and virtue ethics. Both of these theories revolve around doing what is moral, just, and good for the greater benefit of all. The core concept of this ethical philosophy is that one should always strive to do what will bring about the greatest benefit for everyone involved in a situation. Additionally, it holds that one should act out of integrity and with respect for themselves, other people, and nature. This means striving to adhere to a set of noble principles such as honesty, fairness, empathy, justice, responsibility, charity and honor. Finally it suggests that each person must weigh their actions against the consequences they could potentially have on those around them before making any decision or taking any course of action.

In John Doe’s case his moral obligation would be to abstain from using Cloak due to the fact that he knows it breaks copyright laws which can potentially have negative effects on authors who are not being compensated fairly or at all for their work being used without consent or proper payment. It also goes against his own religious beliefs which he has chosen to follow thus denouncing his use of Cloak even further. Furthermore he must take into account its potential effect on people who might be trapped in lower socio-economic statuses by using this software illegally rather than finding legitimate ways to purchase textbooks which are more accessible than ever before with online bookstores like Amazon Prime Student offering discounts and free shipping options so students don’t have an excuse for utilizing illegal services like Cloak anymore given today’s world we live in where technology has taken center stage.

The veil of ignorance theory suggests that if one were unaware about their social status as well as economic background then no decision regarding whether or not such activities as downloading copyrighted material illegally could ever be made since both parties wouldn’t know whether they stand toe gain or lose from whatever outcome may come forth from such actions when considering morality therefore leading us back full circle once again to Kantian ethics which stands firmly rooted upon practical reasonability coming down hard on notions pertaining towards immoral behavior simply because it doesn’t produce results favorable enough overall when looking strictly through the eyes of impartiality regardless concerning whoever is involved whatsoever within said matters deeply surrounding issues involving legality/illegality alongside rights & wrongs simultaneously while highlighting importance behind respectability & duty intertwined respectively between each individual basically conforming together towards upholding universal morality effectively leading right back up towards living out a fulfilling life by following ones conscience above all else quite naturally since there isn’t much choice apart from engaging ethically meaningfully & responsibly inside exceptionally highly relevant contexts near futurewise possibilities within humanity across entire populations globally continuously assuredly!

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 WhatsApp Us Now