Ethical implications of unauthorized access to MBA application files

¶ … wrong for the applicants to take an unauthorized peek at their application files. The intent of the school was clearly to have those files closed, so the viewing of those files was a breach of the school's intentions. There is an implicit duty on the part of the applicant to avoid looking at those files, even if the opportunity presents itself.

Many of the candidates in question apply a consequentialist view of the ethics surrounding this situation. However, the schools are applying a deontological view. That there were no negative consequences related to viewing the files is irrelevant in this situation because the issue relates to trust. With trust, there is always a categorical imperative and trust therefore needs to be maintained at all times. The candidates in question violated the trust that they were attempting to form between themselves and the school. As a result, these candidates committed an act that they should not have.

The applicants should have considered that they have an obligation to uphold the reputation of the school. These business schools all have very good reputations, and they wish to be seen as having the highest standards not only of performance but integrity as well. The candidates should have been aware that looking at the files would reflect poorly on themselves, and that the schools would see somebody that has questionable ethics as being unsuitable for admission. This ties in with the ideals that the schools have. The ideals center around integrity, excellence and character. When an applicant demonstrates a lack of these things, the school sees that candidate as being somebody that will not represent the school well in the future. It is important for these schools that their graduates reflect well on them, so they are careful to ensure that the students they accept have a high level of integrity and high ethical standards. The applicants should have considered that they might face negative consequences for their actions. They should have realized that they are not anonymous when accessing web pages -- especially ones specific to a single person -- and acted accordingly. In analyzing the situation from a consequentialist point-of-view, they neglected to look at the potential consequences for themselves.

There is a generation gap to some extent on this issue. Current students do tend to view the Internet as somehow different from the rest of the world with respect to ethics -- the file-sharing debate is a good example of this schism. However, two points need to be mentioned. The first is that the applicants had to realize that they are not being measured by the standards of their peers but by the standards of the admissions departments at prestigious universities. The second point is that the while there may be the impression that the Internet is somehow different, it is not. The Internet is simply an extension of the physical world. The same laws apply online as offline, and it is reasonable to conclude that the same ethical standards do as well. The applicants in this case forgot to envision what they were doing in real world terms -- breaking into an office to look at files. Just because somebody gives you a key to the office does not mean it is acceptable to break in. When the real world situation is envisioned, it becomes clear that the applicants in question are either naive with respect to ethics or lacking.

Case 2.2

Ford did not address the Pinto situation from any moral theory. Ford evaluated the Pinto situation from a financial point-of-view. Essentially, the company was taking the view that its duty is strictly to the shareholders, and it gambled that the blowback from the Pinto fiasco would not do long-run damage to its stock value. The decision was entirely mathematical.

Had Ford adopted some form of deontological viewpoint, it would have understood that it is contrary to our society's prevailing ethical standards to willfully allow people to die simply because fixing the problem would have been too much work. There are laws -- at least today -- that cover issues of willful negligence causing death because of situations like the one with the Pinto.

Had Ford adopted a consequentialist point-of-view, the company would have realized that the negative consequence of death is far greater than losing some money. The company attempted to perform a consequentialist calculation in deciding not to fix the Pinto, but it did so only taking the Ford company into consideration. The calculation should have included society as a whole, the friends and families of those killed and all other stakeholders. That only one stakeholder was included in the calculation shows that the consequentialist argument was merely a veneer for Ford; the company was only concerned with itself.