Normative Ethics and the Right to Privacy

Normative Ethics and the Right to Privacy

Who owns a person's email after that person has died is a question that is coming up more and more with the advancement of technology. Cases such as those of deceased service members whose family wanted access to their email after they were killed in combat have made the news. Rulings were that the emails belonged to the deceased person and that person's Internet service provider, through the contract the person had with the company. Because of that, the parents or other family members who were grieving their lost loved one could not be given access to their emails. Whether that is "fair" is a matter of opinion, but is it ethical? In order to answer that question, it is important to explore the issue from both a utilitarian and deontological standpoint, as those are contradictory to one another. A conflict between two "types" of ethics can provide much more insight than could be seen from only examining one opinion or one side of a story. In order to get to the root of the issue, one needs to consider it from all reasonable angles so understanding can be fostered.

A utilitarian point-of-view would indicated that the needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few (or the one, depending on how one considers the argument). In other words, if there is something that could be done to one person that would benefit society for a large number of people, that is the way things should be handled. The ability of the dead person's family to read that person's email has no effect on the dead person (no harm being done) and would likely make the family happy and/or bring that family some closure. Because that is the case, the utilitarian argument would state that the service provider should allow the family access to the email of the deceased person. However, the "needs of the many" do not include just the family. There is also the rest of society to consider. Why would the rest of society care about a family getting access to a deceased person's email?

Because society is made up of families, and because everyone in those families will die someday. There are also other reasons why families may try to get hold of the emails of others in that family - someone who is brain dead, for example, or has suffered a severe illness or accident that has left them mentally incapacitated. Where and how should the line be drawn between breaking the agreement between the person and the service provider or not breaking it? Is death the only way to break the agreement? What about brain death? What about mental retardation or incapacitation? A stroke? If the rules are broken for one family for one reason, then more families will be looking to have the agreement broken for them for the same reason - and eventually for other reasons. The ability for a family to be given access to a deceased member's email account sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of society, so in that way it may not outweigh the "need" that family has to have closure or simply to be able to share in the last minutes of a person's life through the interactions he or she had with others over email in his or her final days.

The deontological argument is basically the opposite of the utilitarian argument. It states that the needs of a person are highly significant and that it is unethical to harm a person - even for the good of others. One cited example is that of a gunman who has the person being questioned plus ten other people held as hostages. The gunman has told the person being questioned about ethics that he will kill all ten of the other people in the room, unless the person being questioned kills one person. From a utilitarian standpoint, killing one person would be better than allowing all ten of them to be killed by the gunman. However, from a deontological standpoint that would not be the case. Instead, it would still be wrong to kill one person, because that is an unethical act. It would not matter what the gunman did, because that unethical act (killing ten people) would be on him and the person being questioned would not have any reason to have guilt over the outcome.

Naturally, that kind of scenario seems much more severe than whether a family should have access to a deceased family member's email. Still, the same kind of rules apply. Should a service provider who made a contract with a person do what is allegedly unethical and break that contract simply because the person is deceased? The contract was still valid, and the agreement was that the emails of the deceased person would be deleted and would not be kept or transferred elsewhere after the person's death. That included the idea that the emails would not be able to be accessed by others. It is understandable that the family is grieving, and that it would likely help them feel closer to the deceased family member and provide them with some closure, but business and personal are not the same and should be kept apart. The Internet service provider is a business, and had a business relationship with the deceased person. That contract, along with all the other contracts the provider still has with living people, must be honored so that a level of trust is maintained.