Provide An Intelligent Response To The Following Discussion ✓ Solved

You are an expert security software programmer who does top secret work for the national government of the country of Humdum. Late one afternoon, you come across an ominous email in which you learn that a small group of sinister government officials from Humdum plan—in exactly one hour—to unleash a nuclear attack on the neighboring country of Delta. This same group of four government officials are at odds with the neighboring country because of vastly different political and economic views. The bottom line? You are aware that if this missile is launched, the event will spawn World War III.

Because you are the only person in the country of Humdum who has knowledge of the specific program code that will be used to trigger this devastating missile launch, you alone are the one individual who has the capacity to de-program the event—that is, you could choose to cancel the launch altogether, or you could otherwise divert the nuclear missile to a neutral zone. In short, millions of innocent lives are now in your hands. However, you are a strict deontologist. On the day that you assumed your role as a top-secret national security programmer, you took a solemn oath swearing that you would never intervene in any government action, no matter its consequences. In short, your duty is limited to software programming—and to programming alone.

Indeed, your oath entails that you have an explicit duty never to make a decision that extends beyond your software programming role. Moreover, you are sworn never to discuss your programs with any other human being—except for communication that may be required with a limited number of superiors. On any given day, these few superiors of yours are easily found somewhere in the building. But alas! On this day, you are unable to find even one superior for advice. What would a strict deontologist do? Why? To whom or to what is your duty? This is not an easy question. What would Kant's Categorical Imperative suggest you do here? In this situation, would a strict deontologist be at odds with the thinking of Immanuel Kant?

Paper For Above Instructions

The ethical dilemma faced by an expert security software programmer in the government of Humdum encapsulates a profound conflict between deontological ethics and the pressing moral necessity to prevent nuclear warfare. As this programmer learns of an imminent nuclear attack planned by corrupt government officials, the weight of this knowledge stands in stark contrast to their sworn oath to refrain from intervening in any governmental actions.

Understanding Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics, rooted in the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, emphasizes duties and rules over the consequences of actions. Kant's Categorical Imperative posits that one must act according to maxims that can be universalized and should treat humanity as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end (Kant, 1785). Consequently, adherence to one's promises and obligations stands paramount. Thus, the programmer's oath not to interfere with government actions presents a serious conflict when juxtaposed against the potential calamity of a nuclear attack.

The Programmer's Dilemma

In this scenario, the programmer is acutely aware of two competing principles: the inviolability of their professional duty and the immediate need to act against a catastrophic event threatening millions of lives. A strict deontologist faced with this situation would initially adhere to their duty of non-interference. However, Kantian ethics does not strictly endorse blind allegiance to duty when it may lead to moral harm; instead, it requires one to consider the moral implications of their actions or inactions.

Interpreting Kant's Categorical Imperative

The Categorical Imperative invites reflection on whether the programmer's duty can be reconciled with the ethical obligation to protect human life. One could argue that the duty to protect lives is a higher moral obligation, as failing to act in this context could lead to mass destruction (Hursthouse, 1999). Therefore, while technically following the duty of non-interference aligns with the programmer’s sworn oath, it may also violate a more fundamental moral law of protecting humanity.

The Path Forward

Faced with the dichotomy of duty versus moral consequence, the programmer may contemplate altering their course of action. Legally and morally, one would argue for redirecting the missile rather than allowing the attack to proceed. The decision to act in this manner could be framed as a necessary defect in duty, as the overarching principle to protect lives may supersede the deontological commitment to non-interference (O'Neill, 1989).

Conclusion

This moral scenario presents new perspectives on the rigidity of deontological ethics. The programmer, adhering to Kantian principles, should think critically about the implications of their oath. In the framework of Kant's philosophy, it can be argued that a higher moral duty exists—one that transcends professional commitment. Ultimately, the decision to intervene could reconcile the strict adherence to moral law within a broader context of ethical responsibility and the significant potential for harm that inaction poses.

References

• Hursthouse, R. (1999). Ethics, Humans and the Natural Environment. Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• O'Neill, O. (1989). Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Leonard, O. (2016). Beginner's Guide to Kant's Moral Philosophy. Philosophy Tube.
• Duty-based Ethics. (2014). BBC. Retrieved from [insert link].
• Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics. Prentice-Hall.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rachels, J. (1999). Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Andrew Crooke.