The morality of the applicants

The morality of the candidates’ actions might be considered from various perspectives. First, from the standpoint of egoism, the candidates are ethically correct if their efforts benefit their long-term interests. In this situation, the measures will create a bigger long-term benefit than any other option. The suggestion is that the deed was regarded fit for action and hence should be considered a moral act. Furthermore, according to Oh and Lee’s morality evaluation of egoism, the applicants performed morally. The reason being, they only followed guidelines on a website page signed in with their individual password and username and were able to view their results (51). Moreover, the term “hack” seems to be evasive; for the reason that, the applicants did not view the results of their colleagues, but their own (Oh and Lee 53). Overall, the applicants’ act is not morally right when viewed from a different perspective; as a result, the management acted morally to exhibit good image in the society. This paper seeks to examine the morality in respect to hacking in Harvard critically. The article will look into various perspectives that relate to ethics and possible explanations.

Learning of their outcomes early may not or may have an impact on their protracted term interests. Although the applicants decided to allow their curious mind acquire the better for themselves, and accessing the site, it did not alter the result of the judgment that had been made. However, from this aspect in utilitarianism, the applicants operated morally, being that their actions created the greater good, above the bad. The deed utilitarianism mentions that people must question themselves, consequences of their actions, and future outcome when they decide to act on their actions. When the significances equal to more good compared to courses of the act at that time, then the applicants were right. On the other hand, in utilitarianism perception, the candidates did not act morally. The applicant should not only take into deliberation the school, family and other candidates. Finding out timely are their outcome, is a treatment for their anxiety.

Furthermore, the results of rejection or acceptance could leave some applicants feeling unhappy or happy; thus the act of the candidates was whatsoever but moral. Sikora argued that a deed is morally correct if and only if individuals can resolve it to stand a universal law (30). He added that doing the proper thing is not enough; an act has moral value only when it is done through a sense of duty. If people act out of self-interest, inclinations, or feelings, the deeds lack moral value. As a result, the applicants that applied did not behave morally, because it does not display a clear sense of duty. Applicants acted on behalf of their personal best interest, and the benefit that was to be grown, by learning of their outcome early. These candidates did not think about the motives after their deeds and their individual motivation.

According to Sikora, the applicants’ acts were immoral; he furthered contended that people are faced with various situations daily which require diverse moral approach (29). Different circumstance and difference in relations generate a globe of moral possibilities. By defining “common sense” Oh and Lee maintains that the reinforced human rights and equal rights, and establish the guidance required though the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence (45). Consequently, the deeds of the candidates do not fall below the exclusion of the prima facie duty than knowing their approval status earlier than anticipated. The school had a duty to provide the acceptance announcement in a convenient means in agreement with their application policies and process.

Harvard management did not morally overreact by rejecting the candidates that checked their website online at all. The school has been hit with a negative attention with well-known disastrous alumni. When MIT and Harvard want to maintain their public image on moral standards and ethics for their students and school, they should not allow those who committed morally questionable deeds into their departments of business. As Oh and Lee claim that act utilitarianism, does not morally accept hacking (61). Hacking only provides individual benefit to the hacker however it destroys the data, public image and privacy of the whole society and also terminates the entire safety system set up by the school. Hence, there is need to support the school’s decision.

A good business is at all times useful to display the weakness of another after all that is institution nothing personal. Similarly, the Apply Yourself Inc. database should have been more secured on these categories of files, to safeguard what’s in the best concern of the school and applicant (Oh and Lee 34). The management’s act can be defined letting their sentiments get the best, or as lack of judgment to make them need to discover earlier than expected. The school could have analyzed each case and take a case by case method (Sikora 30). There is always a reason for every action, as well as a reaction to these deeds; instead, they could have heard from the applicants’ views, through an interview to determine their motives for the act. Even though the website was not highly secured, hacking is not moral

As Sikora states that constitution of each state prescribes that it is the primary duty of all people of that country to protect the regulations and laws of the nation (33). In a similar manner, it is the responsibility of every individual and to respect and protect the properties specifically of the business like Harvard, and also the privacy and confidentiality of other objects has to be secured as indicated by the law of the state. Hence everyone has to monitor the rules and going against these policies would suggest that the individual is unethical. The management was therefore protecting and showing good moral to the public through their rejection. For instance, by Dean Clark of Harvard school saying that their mission is to educate upright leaders who create a difference in the globe through many qualities and skills including sound judgment, the highest principles of integrity, and a “strict” moral compass reflects how high morals are observed in the school.

In conclusion, hacking of the school website by the applicants is not moral. The deed utilitarianism mentions that people must question themselves, consequences of their actions, and future outcome when they decide to act on their actions. In fact, the applicants that applied did not behave morally, because it does not display a clear sense of duty. Harvard management did not potentially overreact by rejecting the candidates that checked their website online at all. They should not allow those who commit morally questionable actions into their departments of business. This is because hacking is against the national constitutions. The management was therefore protecting and showing good moral to the public through their rejection.

Work cited

Oh, Sangkyo, and Kyungho Lee. “The need for specific penalties for hacking in criminal law.” The Scientific World Journal 2014 (2014).

Sikora, Marek. “Roy Bhaskar and Ian Hacking. The Problem of Scientific Realism in the Light of Philosophical Reflection on the Laboratory.” Filozofia Nauki 1 (89) (2015): 27-38.