Sometimes, making decisions becomes difficult especially when multiple people are at stake. Lauren, a librarian at Wentern Public Library knows this all to well. One day, while working she was approached by David, a patron who was looking for internet links on the water supply. He continually made Lauren uneasy because David was nervous, flustered, and acting suspicious. He asked Lauren for sources on chemicals in water and the public water system. She feels she should possibly alert authorities, or keep his information just in case something happens. However, these options are against the librarians code of conduct. Federal regulations have also backed protecting an individuals right to privacy while using library computers. The central ethical
…show more content…
This is false because social contracts are extremely important. Social contract is what regulates the relationships between members of a community. It is the glue of the community by setting a common practice amongst the citizens so everyone knows what is in the ‘normal’ social realm. Privacy practices have to be kept in place to ensure security in private matters. Therefore, the duty of the librarian should still be upheld to ensure a healthy relationship between patrons of the library and librarians …show more content…
This is seen as an issue for rule utilitarianism decision making because the intentions of the person carrying out the act might not be morally sound. For instance, the librarian could actually be malicious in intent and tell police about something a patron was researching in order to ruin their career or break up their marriage if he/she did not like them. This could be dangerous to the social contract set in place and put at risk, those who thought they had privacy. The issue with this refutation is that the rule already set in place for Lauren as a librarian prohibits her from keeping personal information about subjects that patrons may access information about in the library. This means that Lauren could not act in an immoral or slanderous manner towards one of the patrons. Lauren would be constricted from the possibility of acting in bad
This is false because social contracts are extremely important. Social contract is what regulates the relationships between members of a community. It is the glue of the community by setting a common practice amongst the citizens so everyone knows what is in the ‘normal’ social realm. Privacy practices have to be kept in place to ensure security in private matters. Therefore, the duty of the librarian should still be upheld to ensure a healthy relationship between patrons of the library and librarians …show more content…
This is seen as an issue for rule utilitarianism decision making because the intentions of the person carrying out the act might not be morally sound. For instance, the librarian could actually be malicious in intent and tell police about something a patron was researching in order to ruin their career or break up their marriage if he/she did not like them. This could be dangerous to the social contract set in place and put at risk, those who thought they had privacy. The issue with this refutation is that the rule already set in place for Lauren as a librarian prohibits her from keeping personal information about subjects that patrons may access information about in the library. This means that Lauren could not act in an immoral or slanderous manner towards one of the patrons. Lauren would be constricted from the possibility of acting in bad