Moral issues differ from legal ones because they are not concerns of the state. Morality is what tells us whether an action is bad or not. There are several schools of thought on the subject. Depending on which theory you ascribe to, an argument can be made for and against any course of action. In our question, Ima has a moral dilemma. She can connect to her neighbour’s wireless router. She is not worried about legal consequences. She knows she is not traceable. The question before her then becomes if she should do so or not. Her invention allows her access to free internet. Is that a good enough reason? Ima is at the crux of a moral dilemma. This paper seeks to assess the morality of this action. The views of Kant, a Deontologist, and Mill, a hedonistic utilitarian, are used.
Deontologist Approach
The deontological moral theory states that the consequences of an action are irrelevant to determining the permissiveness of that action. Kant argues that everyone should do what is right. He believed that one should use reason when deciding what to do. An important tenet of the Kantian theory is that people should act in a way they would wish others to act as well. In Kantian theory, actions are good if they are well intended. If your motives are pure, then the action is “good”. Kant tried to develop a general approach to decision making. It is known as the categorical imperative. It is also called the golden rule or rule of universality. This approach requires rational analysis.
There are four steps to this analysis. First, create a maxim that acts as justification for your decision-making. In the case of Ima Smartie, the maxim would be it is okay to access her neighbour's wireless router. This is because she would have access to free internet. The second step is to imagine it as a universal principle. This means the maxim would govern all rational actions. For our scenario, everyone can connect to other people’s wireless routers because they would have access to free internet. Third, consider whether your maxim holds where laws of nature govern actions. In this scenario, let us assume everyone has access to Ima’s black box. This means everyone can connect to another person’s wireless router undetected. The answer is negative. In a rational world where everyone could have access to free wireless internet in this way, no one would pay for it. This maxim is, thus, not possible. It is irrational as a universal principle. The fourth step is to decide whether you would want people to act in that way if your maxim was a general principle. The maxim does not hold in a rational universe. The action is not morally permissible. A rational person should not take this action.
Utilitarian Approach
Hedonistic utilitarianism compares the pleasure of an action versus the pain it prevents. Pleasure and pain are the main factors in making a decision. Pleasure in this context also means advantage or benefit. Utilitarianism takes a cost-benefit approach to moral decision making. All good and bad consequences of an action are assessed when making decisions. An essential tenant of utilitarianism is that the best course of action is the one that offers the most benefit for the most people. Mill believed that the quality of pleasure should be considered. He thought the amount of pleasure was not a sufficient basis for determining moral good. He held that some kinds of benefit were more important than other benefits. Social and cultural reasons for an action are more desirable and valuable. Higher pleasures are more important than basic and immediate ones.
In utilitarianism, the final decision should generally be the good one. This means that the decision should actually be the right choice. Utilitarianism is not meant to be used as a decision procedure to decide what to do. An objective assessment is made instead. The information available is used to assess the positive and negative consequences. In our case, Ima is essentially stealing from her neighbour. She is making use of a resource belonging to someone else without his or her permission. This is wrong. Any objective person would be able to see that. Utilitarianism should lead to the morally right decision. The benefits do not outweigh the damage caused. It is not right to take advantage of someone’s property. It is morally wrong for Ima to connect to her neighbour's wireless router this way. She should either pay for her own internet or ask the neighbour to use their network.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Kant and Mill have compelling approaches to morality and ethics. Kant believes there are no circumstances that justify making decisions that harm others. Mill believes that a decision is morally right if it benefits the most people versus other decisions that cause greater harm. Kant's views assume an idealized scenario where all people are rational and act in the best interests of everyone. This is a high bar. For example, Kant holds that lying is always wrong regardless of why. Lying is necessary in a civilized world. Brutal honesty would cause conflict between people. Under utilitarianism, some people are overlooked. The few people negatively affected by a decision are still people. This is a weakness of the approach. The moral thing for Ima Smartie under both models is not to use her black box. In my opinion, Kant offers a clear decision making path. Just because Ima is able to get free internet, it is still morally wrong to do so. Kant’s approach is clear. The intentions of the decision maker are important. Ima does not have good intentions. Using her black box in this way constitutes theft. For this reason, it is not morally right to do so.
