Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Essay Available:
You are here: HomeCourseworkIT & Computer Science
Pages:
1 page/≈275 words
Sources:
11 Sources
Level:
MLA
Subject:
IT & Computer Science
Type:
Coursework
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 6.48
Topic:

Computers and Philosophy (Coursework Sample)

Instructions:
1. According to Lessig, the way free speech can be protected and regulated on the internet is very different from the way free speech is or can be regulated in "real space". Explain what Lessig sees as the differences between them and why they're important 2. In your own words, explain Allen Wood's problems with ethical relativism. Is Allen Wood right to think that ethical relativism is wrong? Why or why not? 3. According to Rachels, why is privacy important to us? In what ways does Mooradian think that Rachels's view has held up, and which ways has it not? Is Mooradian right? Why or why not? 4. Tim Wu believes that the possibility of blocking can help explain why we should have net neutrality, but Christopher Yoo does not. Explain their reasons. Who is right and why? source..
Content:
COMPUTER AND PHILOSOPHY NAME COURSE TITLE TUTORS NAME DATE 1 According to Lessig, the way free speech can be protected and regulated on the internet is very different from the way free speech is or can be regulated in "real space". Explain what Lessig sees as the differences between them and why they're important. 516 words Professor Lessig’s idea about speech is extremely important. Having lived in the real world has proved to be an entirely different world from the cyberspace. Real space confines us to the space we are currently in. This is an entire different world from the cyberspace where you are spontaneously delocalized. Anyone can access information about you from anywhere in the whole world. This is a world that has rewritten all the rules, and a place that goes beyond government regulations. The cyberspace promises a world that can never be matched to the real space. It is seen as a democratic wonderland where there is unfettered free speech, creativity and room for business competition.[Lessig, Lawrence. "The laws of cyberspace." Readings in cyberethics 134 (1998): 136] Lessig on the other hand has an entirely different opinion, he demonstrates how the internet is changing from a libertarian’s utopia to one controlled by personal and commercial interests. There is a big trade-off between free speech on the internet and on the real world. Speech on the internet can be hard to regulate unlike in real space. The speech in cyberspace is easier to access by everyone despite that it’s not intended for a certain audience, say minors. The internet only provides room for one to answer a simple question of whether they are adults or not. This provides room for one to access such information at free will. On the other hand, in real space, you can censor or choose the kind of speech to deliver basing on the audience at hand. He feels that the design of the internet makes managing personal behaviour troublesome, in light of the fact that those whose conduct you're attempting to control could be situated anywhere on the Net. The identity of the person, the location, and whether law can be practiced over him there, all these are inquiries that legislature must answer on the in case it wills to enforce its will. In any case, these inquiries are made incomprehensibly troublesome by the engineering of the space in any event as it seemed to be. The internet can be spam filled and yet no one cares the impact it has to the public. This can never be received well in the real space. Promoting segregation will leave others shunning you. This shows the reason why speech has to be protected and regulated in real space to ensure that it does not hurt the ones it’s intended or even the owner of the words. The architecture in which the speech is based on matters a lot. This is the reason why effective protection seems conditional than a view of law would suggest. Uttering some words in a certain country, be it on the internet or in real space, would be viewed positively, whereas, the same words would invoke legal measures being taken on you in another country. Speaking has no barriers, but the freedom left for is being remade to re-regulate what real-space architecture had made easy to regulate. The internet is already shifting to a controlled space with the changes being inevitable. We however have the liberty to determine which freedom we deem right to preserve. 2 In your own words, explain Allen Wood’s problems with ethical relativism. Is Allen Wood right to think that ethical relativism is wrong? Why or why not? 541 words Allan wood is right to give his opinion on ethical relativism. He has broadly justified his opinion with what can be termed as strong, profound and firmly argued choice of words. Ethical relativism is a doctrine that we cannot exempt from in reality. Allen is broadminded and gives the reader a chance to evaluate and give his or her opinion. He creates room for one to revisit the whole idea as brought forward by Protagoras and critically re-evaluate it. The whole idea that Allen does not agree to the idea of ethical relativism does not imply that he is irrational in his ethical judgement. Ethical matters are not something that everyone will always agree or side with.[Pearson, Ron. "Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Coorientation, rules, and the idea of communication symmetry." Journal of Public Relations Research 1, no. 1-4 (1989): 67-86.] Allen Wood seems to have a big problem with Protagoras view on private experiences. Protagoras seems to alienate private experiences and justify the fact that none can share in the same. He places a blindfold on the error of exclusion. The thing that we are acquainted to in our day to day life does not simply mean that we are right in every judgement about them. As Allen states, "Truth applies only to judgements about a shared world." This means that you can’t isolate truth based on personal opinion. Societies vary generally in their ethical practices. We may assume that in the matter of taking life all people groups would concur on judgment. Despite what might be expected, in the matter of manslaughter, it might be held that one murders by custom his two kids, or that a spouse has a privilege of life and demise over his wife or that it is the obligation of the kid to kill his folks before they are old. Among a few people groups, a man endures torment at having brought on a coincidental passing, among others, it involves no outcome. Suicide may likewise be a light matter, the plan of action of any individual who has endured some slight repel, a demonstration that continually happens in a tribe. It might be the most noteworthy and noblest act an insightful man can perform. The very story of it, then again, might be a matter for sceptical jollity, and the demonstration itself, difficult to consider as human probability. On the other hand it might be a wrongdoing deserving of law, or viewed as a transgression against humans.[Rorty, Richard. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: philosophical papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 1991.] Allen points to a scope of practices considered ethically worthy in a few social orders however censured in others, including child murder, genocide, polygamy, bigotry, sexism, and torment. Such contrasts may lead us to address whether there are any general good standards or whether profound quality is just a matter of "social taste." Differences in good practices crosswise over societies bring a vital issue up in morals - the idea of "moral relativism." Be that as it may, regardless of the fact that the hypothesis of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be recognized that the idea raises critical issues. Ethical relativism advises us that distinctive social orders have diverse good convictions and that our convictions are profoundly affected by society. It additionally urges us to investigate the reasons fundamental convictions that contrast from our own, while testing us to look at our purposes behind the convictions and qualities we hold. 3 According to Rachels, why is privacy important to us? In what ways does Mooradian think that Rachels’s view has held up, and which ways has it not? Is Mooradian right? Why or why not? 590 words James Rachel’s has engaged in extensive research and academic effort towards demystifying the essence and rationale for privacy. According to the scholar, privacy is very important in regard to creating the requisite balance and appropriateness in relation to human interaction and how they are engaged in the society. Rachel’s identifies the role of privacy in situations that individuals are intent on preserving information in the face of embarrassment or impropriety. James disseminates a very crucial idea on the importance of maintaining control of the information dispersed to others making relationships more high held. This introduces a very sensitive point on information systems which seems to be collecting mundane personal information in a great way. This raises a great concern where core areas such as financial and medical information which are highly sensitive to be disclosed without own consent would be devastating to the owner. Rachel focuses on the context of information privacy in the information systems. They collect personal information day in day out and at some point one may forget that such information had been collected. This implies loss of control over the information already released. Mooradian views Rachel’s whole idea as high held. There are numerous ways a man can be hurt by the disclosure of delicate personal information CITATION Mil99 \l 1033 (Milberg 199). Therapeutic records, mental tests and meetings, court records, money related records, whether from banks, credit agencies or the IRS, welfare records, internet access details and an assortment of different sources hold numerous close points of interest of a man's life. The disclosure of such information can leave the subjects helpless against numerous misuses.[Cheng, Hsing Kenneth, Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, and Hong Guo. "The debate on net neutrality: A policy perspective." Information systems research22, no. 1 (2011): 60-82.] Great information is required for good choices. It may appear like the greater the access to information the better. However, now and then that information is abused, or even utilized for pernicious purposes. For instance, there is a lot of misconception in our general public about maladjustment and the individuals who experience the ill effects of...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Other Topics:

    Need a Custom Essay Written?
    First time 15% Discount!