Taken in isolation, consequentialist ethics would dictate that Yahoo allow the parents access to Mr. Ellsworth's email.
However, in today's legal environment, such actions cannot reasonably be taken in isolation. If Yahoo sets a precedent, they will be asked to release this information time and again in this circumstance. They would also need to defend against abuse of this by demanding proof of death, and other such burdening verifications. While duplicating a right action many times over only yields multiple right actions, surrendering the account access could create a precedent by which privacy rights could be violated in other instances. If in those instances harm is done to living persons, then the consequences would flow back to that original decision, rendering it immoral. Thus, the morality of this decision is guided in part by the likelihood that this decision would start the company down this particular slippery slope.
Yahoo decided to wait for a court order to release the email. From a consequentialist perspective, Yahoo was uncertain of whether or not their decision would ultimately be a morally right one. Thus, they deferred the matter to the courts. The company's interest is to protect its shareholders, and upholding its contracts is a part of that commitment. Therefore, it would have been unreasonable for Yahoo to follow a consequentialist approach in this question at all. The consequences of breaking the privacy contract without court order could have led to a reduction in Yahoo's customer base, as other firms would be viewed as having better privacy integrity. Thus, Yahoo viewed their...
From a deontological position, this is wrong, unless the judge views the rights of the deceased to be now irrelevant. From a consequentialist perspective, the situation was resolved well. The parents no longer had to suffer and the specific court order allowed other Yahoo customers (and indeed those of any email provider) to retain their privacy rights, thereby reducing suffering of the general public. Likewise, Yahoo did not suffer, nor did their shareholders, because the release of access was spurred by court order. For all involved, a resolution was created that worked under a consequentialist perspective. This appears to hinge on the consequentialist view that the dead man's rights no longer exist, because he cannot suffer harm at this point. The deontological perspective takes its morality from the original agreement between Mr. Ellsworth and Yahoo, ascribing no significance to the fact that he is now deceased, since the agreement was made in good faith and at that point dictated the morality of Yahoo's actions with regards to the account from that point forward.
Works Cited:
Alexander, Larry & Moore, Michael. (2007). Deontological Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Sinnot-Armstrong, William. (2006). Consequentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
