Downloading copyrighted books
Response
Kantian ethics imply that a person should act according to the set rules that are created for everyone. My ethical philosophy, in this case, lies with Kantian ethics. One should always respect the good in other people and act according to the set rules and regulations.
John Doe’s actions do not show any sign of respect to the other party’s properties. Using a prohibited application to download copyrighted books shows that he is immoral. Rachels et al. (2019) suggest that for us to flourish, we expect people to treat us well.
Therefore, John Doe’s actions show that he wants to benefit from a copyrighted book, not minding that the author also should get what he or she deserves. John Doe’s religion forbids such an act. The religious belief is treating people in the right way and acting as required by the set rules. Formosa (2017) suggests that Kantian ethics promotes acts of dignity when one does the right thing.
Hörisch and Hannah (2010) state that the veil of ignorance means that a person knows nothing of his or her abilities or role in a society. It stipulates that all persons are free and morally equal beings. Determining justice using a veil of ignorance incorporates the assumption that every person knows the consequences of such actions. John Doe is aware of what he is supposed to do, and, therefore, his works are immoral. The assumption behind the veil of ignorance is that a just system comes from not recognizing a person’s position in society. Justice is achieved when society treats everyone equally. John Doe’s status as a nurse is not acknowledged when using a veil of ignorance to seek justice.
Cited Works
Formosa, Paul. Kantian ethics, dignity, and perfection. Cambridge University Press, 2017. P.1-4
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education. 2019
Schildberg-Hörisch, and Hannah. “Is the Veil of Ignorance Only a Concept About Risk? An experiment.” Journal of Public Economics 94.11-12 (2010): 1062-1066.