Do Women Have a Distinctive Ethical Perspective Essay

Do Women Have a Distinctive Ethical Perspective - Essay Example Moral codes are the interwoven fibres of ethical theories. Usually moral codes are the provisions of agreement between two men or women or group of people. As long as the provisions of agreement are adhered with conformity they are deemed to be moral codes. If any violation emerges at any point, then the moral codes cease to be moral codes. Thus moral disagreements pave way for ethical disintegration. The basic and pivotal sub classifications of ethical theories are: - Utilitarianism is one of the most practiced norms of ethical theories. There are two types of utilitarianism namely, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism promotes doing good to most people unmindful of personal feelings and societal constraints like laws whereas rule utilitarianism regulates doing good to most of the people within the frame work of admitted/agreed laws and rules. (Catherine Rainbow, 2002) In this paper we are going to discuss the ethical perspectives of men and women. The ethical perspectives of men normally are justice based and that of women are care based. Men’s perspective in many cases permits inconsistent decisions at palliating circumstances that lead to certain limited violations of provisions already agreed for. Women although termed frail sex, do not allow such violations and tend to be rule utilitarianism followers in many situations. Moral codes and moral issues are always accompanied necessarily by contexts. While discussing ethical theories and in the formation of ethical theories it becomes necessary to remove contexts so that theories could be generalised. This task many times becomes very difficult because on removing the contexts of the issues we are at the danger of landing on diluting the very motto of generalisation. Thus contexts are to be removed only for identification. That is we

Crimes Against Information Systems Analysis Essay

Crimes Against Information Systems Analysis - Essay Example Cyber-terrorism is the new crime preference to inflict havoc on the masses of society. Watson (2002) defines cyber-terrorism as "the use of cyber tools to shut down critical national infrastructures (such as energy, transportation, or government operations) for the purpose of coercing or intimidating a government or civilian population." (p.8) Over the years, the level of cyber-terrorism has evolved. Years ago, hackers attained satisfaction by simply breaking into a system (Wilmot, 2004). However, Littleton (1995) still regards hackers as dangerous and further implies imminent danger by questioning the ability of a hacker to become a cyber-terrorist. Wilmot (2004) contends that hackers' abilities to "crack passwords or find a back door route through a security firewall" shows that hackers can easily use a simple act to corrupt data in high technology. (p. 287). Though hackers implement a more simplistic form of cyber-terrorism, and their trespassing is not as harmful as modern day cr ackers-those who seek to disable networks or systems-both hackers and crackers pose danger to the world that holds critical information. However, the sophistication of cyber-terrorists' methods correlates with the degree of their motives. An intent Motives and Methods of Cyber-Terrorists An intent of cyber-terrorist includes causing a devastating amount of damage, while remaining elusive. To illustrate the elusiveness of a cyber-terrorist, Littleton (1995) uses two examples from the late 1980's. The identification, trial, and conviction of Robert T. Morris transpired only because he spoke of his creation, the 1988 Internet Worm, to several people. Rather, the author of the famous Michelangelo virus remains unidentified and escaped consequences altogether. The low risk of being captured coupled with the benefit of easily gaining access to restricted areas makes the crime of cyber-terrorism more appealing to criminals. Motives of cyber-terrorists range from mischief to malice. Today's juveniles have joined the cyber-terrorist realm by defacing Web sites. However, Watson (2002) regards the less serious crimes as highly consequential. When a site is defaced, its information is altered. Misleading information ultimately deceives viewers of the site and result in decrease of confidence and capital for owners of the site. Both hackers and crackers gain access to exclusive information by deciphering protective codes (Wilmot, 2004), which Littleton (1995) claims is not hard to do. A mischievous hacker seeks to only occupy an area considered off limits. On the other hand, a malicious cracker not only breaks codes to enter off-limits areas, but he or she seeks to vandalize or defile the area by causing immediate damage or planting viruses which slowly infiltrate and destroy systems that operate as critical infrastructures (Morris; Wilmot, 2004). Impact of Cyber-Terrorism According to Wilmot (2004), citizens cannot function without the critical infrastructures of their communities. One part of the critical infrastructure extremely vulnerable to cyber-terrorism is the public safety system. Branches of the public safety