Kantianism is the reasoning to do the right thing, the duty, and having treating everyone equally and not to use someone as a means to an end, and by this theory, the RUX’s action is not ethically justified. The RUX Universities actions on restricting computer usage is in fact justified by this theory. Research by the MIT’s Department of Economics and the US National Bureau of Economic Research show the negative impact on student’s academic performance with computer usage. What the RUX University is trying to accomplish, is to restrict the usage in classroom, which assumes the halt of the negative impact. So they are indeed trying to do the right thing by helping student’s academic performance improve, which is morally doing the right thing, hence it being justified.
…show more content…
By restricting access of computer usage, you are depriving students of their own free will. There’s a wide range of what a student’s computer usage actually is in class, and though it maybe non-school related or even school related, the restriction itself will surely make a mass majority of unhappiness. Very few positive effects come into play, and those people could potentially be the ones who wanted to implement this action. The overall effect is that the majority of students’ unhappiness outweighs the happiness of anyone else, in which the action is not ethically
By restricting access of computer usage, you are depriving students of their own free will. There’s a wide range of what a student’s computer usage actually is in class, and though it maybe non-school related or even school related, the restriction itself will surely make a mass majority of unhappiness. Very few positive effects come into play, and those people could potentially be the ones who wanted to implement this action. The overall effect is that the majority of students’ unhappiness outweighs the happiness of anyone else, in which the action is not ethically