COSC 1147: Professional Computer Practice Assignment 1

Question 1

1.1)

In a view of an external neutral relativist, the digital equipment can both be considered as bribe or not. This would rely greatly on his/her morals and views, base on his/her cultural norms, perception as well as consideration. Relativism stated as there are no absolute truth, as the validity is subjective according individuals opinion. In my own opinion as a relativist, I think it might not be consider as bribe. This is because, in Malaysia, we often offer gift of appreciation, just to show gratitudes for having a friends or family members; we dont need a valid reason or intention for giving out something. For the view of an external neutral deontologist, the digital equipment would be considered as a bribe. Deontology judges the morality of an action solely based on the actions adherence to a rules and obligation. Usually in a company, there should be agreement stated as one shall not accept something that would benefits the individual. For illustration, in some Cafe, staff are not allow to collect tips for his/her own, whereby the tips will goes into a tips box, where it is then divided evenly. So in a deontology point of view, it would be morally wrong to accept the camera as it might be against the company agreement. On an external neutral utilitarian point of view, the digital equipment would not be considered as bribe. Utilitarian is a form of consequentialism, whereby the moral worth of an action is decided by the resulting outcome. It primarily focuses on the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. In this case, both Seamus and I achieve happiness and beneficial for both parties, and this is just what utilitarianism about. Hence, in my perspective as utilitarian, I would not consider the camera as a bribe, as it brings no harm but the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.

1.2)

1.3)

1.4)

In my own opinion, I think it shouldnt be consider as a bribe. Based on the conversation log and the way I convey my likings, it was solely to express my interest in digital photography equipment, and it has no other intention. Besides that, me myself are more towards a utilitarian, since it will bring the greatest amount of happiness for both parties, I would accept the gift. I wouldnt want to reject someone gift of appreciation as it might causes me to lost a potential contractor. In my boss perspective, I would not judge whether or not it is a bribe simply by hearing from third party or looking at the conversation log itself. I would need the employee to justify and prove himself that he is innocence, and provide a valid explanation, based on the chat log and so on. In this case, I dont see that the employee was intentionally asking for gift, as it just happens that the conversation flows into that way, where my employee convey his interest in the digital photography equipment. So, I would not think that the camera is a bribe.

1.5)

Question 2
2.1) First of all, I would tell Daphne that it was not fair to judge someone or make decisions about the potential job candidates base on the candidates social networking profiles. However, even if it wasnt fair, doesnt mean that it was wrong. According to the RMITs Lecturer slides, its stated that the employer can legally decide to reject someone based on a review from his/her social networking sites, as long as the employer did not violate the states discrimination laws. Besides that, this job candidate was caught involve in taking recreational substances, which was consider against the law. Hence, I would too, recommends Daphne in dropping the candidate. However, this is not because of the candidates attitude, but because of involving in illegal activities. I dont think it is ethical or fair for the organizations to use Social media website as a tool to research and make decision. However, being non ethical doesnt mean that it is against the law; law itself is the lowest boundary of ethics. It was not wrong to make decision base on the review on the social networking sites. As mentioned in the lecturer slides, as long as the employer doesnt violate the law, it would be consider legally accepted. In my opinion, I would not judges someone ability to perform base on the candidates social profile. As long as the candidates are responsible for his/her works, duties and obligations, it would be fine. However, that would not be the case if the candidates were caught involving in doing illegal stuff.

2.2)

References

Wikipedia, 2012, Relativism, Wikipedia, viewed 23 August 2012, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism>

Wikipedia, 2012, Deontological ethics, Wikipedia, viewed 23 August 2012, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics>

Wikipedia, 2012, Utilitarianism, Wikipedia, viewed 23 August 2012, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism>

Margaret Hamilton, Shekhar Kalra, 2012, Lecture Notes 2: Philosophical Ethics ,course readings from COSC1147, RMIT University, Melbourne, viewed 24 August 2012, RMIT Blackboard , <https://lms.rmit.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3794538-dt-content-rid6045799_1/courses/COSC1147_1250/Lecture02.pdf>

Margaret Hamilton, Shekhar Kalra, 2012, Lecture Notes 3: Professional Ethics and the Internet, Google and Facebook ,course readings from COSC1147, RMIT University, Melbourne, viewed 24 August 2012, RMIT Blackboard , < https://lms.rmit.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3858917-dt-content-rid6069225_1/courses/COSC1147_1250/Lecture03.pdf>

Margaret Hamilton, Shekhar Kalra, 2012, Lecture Notes 4: Professional Ethics and the Social Networking, Twitter ,course readings from COSC1147, RMIT University, Melbourne, viewed 24 August 2012, RMIT Blackboard , < https://lms.rmit.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3858922-dtcontent-rid-6069231_1/courses/COSC1147_1250/Lecture04.pdf>