Gill 1 of 5

Yuvraj Gill
July 10, 2023

How do philosophical ethical frameworks view the collection of private user data by large-scale
companies?

The three ethical frameworks:

Ethics constitute a fundamental pillar of philosophy, dedicated to the understanding of
moral principles and the guidelines which steer human behavior and decision-making processes.
The study of ethics explores the distinction between right and wrong, in a search for the optimal
course of action one should take in differing circumstances. This paper will examine three ethical
models: utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and Aristotelian virtue ethics. Each ethical model
will then be applied to the ethical dilemmas highlighted in Erika Check Hayden’s “The Big
Peek”. This paper works to provide a comprehensive analysis of the concepts presented in each
of the three ethical models mentioned above.

Utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses more on the consequences of one’s actions
than the intentions behind one’s actions. One of the main focuses of utilitarianism is the amount
of happiness each action produces, as happiness is considered the main goal of life in the eyes of
utilitarians. Contrary to other belief systems such as egoism, however, utilitarianism focuses not
only on the happiness of oneself, but on the happiness of everyone, as one teaching of
utilitarianism is the belief that one person is not more important than any other one person, and
that the happiness of one person is equally important as the happiness of any other person.
Therefore, utilitarianism calls for the pursuit of pleasure for as many sentient beings as possible.
A utilitarian society would “aim for the betterment of society as a whole” (Tardi, 2023).
Utilitarianism comes in two forms: act, or classical, utilitarianism, which was the original form
of utilitarianism introduced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and rule utilitarianism, a
newer version of utilitarianism which teaches to refrain from acts that may maximize utility in
the short run, and instead follow rules that will maximize utility in the long run. While act, or
classical, utilitarianism focuses primarily on an action’s impact, rule utilitarianism focuses on the
goodness or badness of the moral rule the action follows. In other words, rule utilitarians
prioritize good “general rules over the particular consequences of a given action” (Pollens-
Dempsey, 2022), while act utilitarians focus on the consequences of a given action over the rules
it follows.

Some key concepts of utilitarianism include the principle of utility, which is the theory
that actions are judged by their tendency to “produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or
happiness” (Broome, 2008), not by the intention behind the action. For example, if one lit a
candle in hopes of decorating a room, but the candle caught the edge of a curtain and caused the
curtain to burst into flames, the action would be a bad action, since it had a bad result,
irrespective of the action’s intention, which was simply to make a room look better.
 Gill 2 of 5

Kantian deontology:
Kantian deontology is a theory of ethics developed by Immanuel Kant, a German
philosopher, in the 18th century. Kantian deontology argues that the morality of an action is not
determined by its outcome, but rather by whether or not it follows a set of universal moral
principles. One of the main teachings of Kantian deontology include the belief that moral
principles are based on rationality, and all rational beings have a duty to act in accordance with
these principles. This means that certain actions, such as lying or stealing, are always wrong, no
matter the circumstances. For example, if one had to lie to a thief in order to not be stolen wrong,
their lie is still morally wrong, even if the outcome was positive (the thief did not steal from the
person). One aspect of Kantian deontology involves whether or not an action can be
universalized as good. For example, if one lies to not be stolen from, in order for their action to
be considered morally good, they must be able to allow everyone to lie. However, if everyone
lied, the world would be a very morally reprehensible place. As a result, no matter the
circumstance, to lie is morally bad.

Another key aspect of Kantian deontology is the idea of treating individuals as ends in
themselves, not as means to an end. Essentially, Kantian deontology teaches that it is not morally
acceptable to use others for personal gain. An example of this is if a mother loans her child
money to buy groceries, but the child instead uses the money to purchase a new toy car. In this
case, the child did not recognize his mother’s needs and value system, and instead effectively
used her for their own personal gain, or buying a toy car.

Another aspect of Kantian deontology is its use of categorical imperatives. Categorical

imperatives are defined by Immanuel Kant as “commands or moral laws all persons must follow,
regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances” (Columbia University, 2020). One
famous categorical imperative is the universalizability principle, in which one should “act only in
accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a
universal law” (Columbia University, 2020). What this means is that one should only do an
action if they can wish that everybody else should also be able to do said action and the world
would not become a worse place.
 Gill 3 of 5

Aristotelian virtue ethics:

Aristotelian virtue ethics follow a theory known as the virtue theory, which is an ethical
theory that emphasizes the character of an individual instead of providing a set of rules to follow.
Aristotle defined virtue as a midpoint in a spectrum, with each extreme of the spectrum known as
a vice. For example, a respectful person would not be take their respect for another person to the
point of idolatry, but would also not entirely disregard anyone who may cross their path. In this
case, disregard and idolatry would be a deficiency and excess of respect, or vices due to their
extreme nature, and respect would be virtue, or the golden mean. According to Aristotle, a person
can only learn virtue through experience, and called virtue a form of practical wisdom, which
means that it can only be obtained through forming a habit of being virtuous and by following
other virtuous people, or moral exemplars.

Some key concepts of Aristotelian virtue ethics include a great focus on virtuous
character. Aristotle believed that ethics ought not to be solely viewed as compliance to moral
laws or norms, but rather as the cultivating and nurturing of personal characteristics. These
personal characteristics are developed and refined over a lifetime through practice, eventually
leading to a life of eudaimonia. In eudaimonia, which roughly translates to “flourishing”, one
finally tastes the fruit of their own labor. A life of eudaimonia is a life full of happiness which
stems from the achievement of something difficult, and in the eyes of Aristotle, is much more
desirable than sources of happiness which are handed down without any hard work involved.

Aristotelian virtue ethics primarily revolve around the notion of eudaimonia, moral
virtues, intellectual virtues, and the concept of the golden mean. The term eudaimonia is
frequently translated as “flourishing”, but Aristotle's understanding of it extends beyond
momentary happiness to a broader concept of human flourishing or human excellence. He
believes that our ultimate purpose or goal in life is to achieve eudaimonia and suggests that it can
be attained through active engagement in virtuous activities, with such active engagement
creating a link between virtue and happiness. In Aristotelian virtue ethics, virtues are classified
into two categories: moral virtues and intellectual virtues. Moral virtues are developed through
habituation and practice, including bravery, generosity, honesty, and more. Intellectual virtues, on
the other hand, comprise wisdom, intelligence, prudence, and more, which are nurtured through
education and gradual learning.
 Gill 4 of 5

How they relate to large-scale companies using private user data:

In Erika Check Hayden’s 2015 paper titled “The Big Peek”, the paper discusses how in
the wake of online data storage, such as the storage of health and welfare records, as well as
convenience store purchase records, several questions arise: first, how can this data be used in a
scientific environment to help social scientists conduct experiments and report findings, and
second: how the data presented can be a large infringement on the privacy rights of the public. In
order to answer the second question, several ethical models can be used, namely, utilitarianism,
Kantian deontology, and Aristotelian virtue ethics.

From the viewpoint of utilitarianism, which is, as we have explored in this paper, an ethic
stressing the maximization of overall happiness and minimization of pain, the access to and use
of personal information of the public can be justified if it brings more pleasure than discomfort.
For instance, customizing shopping experiences or tailoring online advertisements creates ease
and gratification for customers, thus fostering greater happiness to some degree. However, its
tenability teeters when the activity results in harm such as identity theft, online fraud and
invasion of privacy, tipping the scales towards disutility.

Kantian deontology, which places a high priority on duty and upholds absolute moral
rules, would likely condemn the use of the public's data without explicit consent as a violation of
autonomy. Kantian deontology espouses the principles of respect for persons and their inherent
dignity. Using customer's data would be seen as treating them merely as a means to an end —
increasing sales and profits — rather than respecting them as ends in themselves. According to
the paper, one convenience store used the purchase receipt of a teenage girl to infer that she was
“pregnant based on her purchases there, and it began sending her coupons for baby
products” (Hayden, The Big Peek). In this case, the convenience store did not value the privacy
of a teenage girl and her family, and they used her for their own needs, which in this case was to
sell more of their products. Therefore, Kantian ethics would find this corporate behavior
objectionable unless full transparency and consumer consent is apparent.

Aristotelian virtue ethics, on the other hand, evaluates the moral rectitude of actions
based on the character traits they reflect rather than their consequences or adherence to duty.
Virtue ethics emphasizes equilibrium; the 'Golden Mean' between extremes. In the context of
corporations using consumer data, virtuous action involves finding a balance between the
legitimate business interests and consumers' rights to privacy. Corporations must cultivate virtues
like honesty, fairness, and respect for individual privacy, which weds the business exigences with
consumer rights, ensuring neither side is unduly favoured or compromised.

While utilitarianism may tolerate the use of personal data for overall happiness and
market efficiency, Kantian deontology demands the adherence to inviolable principles by
 Gill 5 of 5

respecting consumer autonomy. Meanwhile, Aristotelian virtue ethics underlines the importance
of fostering virtuous corporate behavior that harmonizes the interests of both parties through
continual character development and ethical judgement. It is incumbent upon corporations to
reflect on these ethical perspectives to navigate the contentious territory of using public data.

Resources/Bibliography (Cited in APA7 Format):

Sources used for utilitarianism:

I. Tardi, C. (2023, June 5). Utilitarianism: What it is, founders, and main principles.
Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp

II. Broome, J. (2008, December 5). “utility”: Economics & Philosophy. Cambridge Core.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/economics-and-philosophy/article/abs/
utility/56CF937C558E9733551694609069B2E1

III. Pollens-Dempsey, M. (2022, February 9). Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism. Study.com. https://
study.com/learn/lesson/act-rule-utilitarianism-types-examples.html

Sources used for Kantian deontology:

I. Muscente, K. K. (2020, July 13). Categorical imperatives and the case for deception: Part I:
2020: IRB blog: Institutional Review Board: Teachers college, Columbia University.
Teachers College - Columbia University. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/institutional-
review-board/irb-blog/2020/categorical-imperatives-and-the-case-for-deception-part-
i/
#:~:text=Kant%20defines%20categorical%20imperatives%20as,their%20desires%20
or%20extenuating%20circumstances

II. Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2022, January 21). Kant’s moral philosophy. Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

Sources used for Aristotelian virtue ethics:

I. mcuckow, W. by. (2018, April 6). Virtue ethics in leadership. Mataya’s Leadership Toolkit.
https://leadershiptoolkit543804974.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/trust/

II. Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. (n.d.). https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/

III. Fisher, A., & Dimmock, M. (2022, August 12). Aristotelian Virtue ethics. Philosophical
Thought. https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/virtue-ethics/