Supreme Court Justice Scalia once said, “The very purpose of anonymity is to facilitate wrong by eliminating accountability” (Palme). But what if the facilitating has gone too far? Should anonymity be sacrificed? This is an issue where in a senatorial election Candidate A starts spreading defamatory information regarding the candidate B through an anonymous email server. Candidate B then believes that whoever is sending these emails is hurting her campaign. Does candidate B have any right to request the identity of the anonymous email? Is candidate A actually breaking any laws here? Let’s examine this case under the ethic worldviews of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory and Virtue Ethics. The first thing that needs to be determined
…show more content…
Kant’s theory had a heavy emphasis on what is rational and what is moral. Kantianism is a view that is defined by two categorical imperatives. The first imperative essentially states that, “you should act only on moral rules that you can imagine everyone else following without contradiction” (Quinn 66). The second one states, “Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as means to an end” (Quinn 67). Candidate A isn’t inherently breaking any laws or moral codes by using an anonymous email server. One of the biggest draws to the internet is being able to send other people 's messages anonymously. However, anonymity takes away a big part of autonomy (a major part of Kantianism) because autonomy, “enables one to take responsibility for one’s opinions” (Deligiorgi 91). This means Candidate B isn’t necessarily breaking Kant’s rule of autonomy by requesting the identity of the emailer. Now let’s look at Candidate A’s side. Candidate A could argue that he is not breaking the first categorical imperative because she is not breaking any of the cybercrimes defined by the United
Kant’s theory had a heavy emphasis on what is rational and what is moral. Kantianism is a view that is defined by two categorical imperatives. The first imperative essentially states that, “you should act only on moral rules that you can imagine everyone else following without contradiction” (Quinn 66). The second one states, “Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as means to an end” (Quinn 67). Candidate A isn’t inherently breaking any laws or moral codes by using an anonymous email server. One of the biggest draws to the internet is being able to send other people 's messages anonymously. However, anonymity takes away a big part of autonomy (a major part of Kantianism) because autonomy, “enables one to take responsibility for one’s opinions” (Deligiorgi 91). This means Candidate B isn’t necessarily breaking Kant’s rule of autonomy by requesting the identity of the emailer. Now let’s look at Candidate A’s side. Candidate A could argue that he is not breaking the first categorical imperative because she is not breaking any of the cybercrimes defined by the United