This paper examines the 2004–2005 case in which John Ellsworth sought access to the email account of his son Justin, a soldier killed in Fallujah, after Yahoo refused to release the messages. Using this case as a lens, the paper contrasts two ethical frameworks: the deontological approach, which holds that rules such as privacy promises must be upheld unconditionally, and the utilitarian approach, which weighs outcomes and the greatest good for the greatest number. The paper also considers legal precedents, the practical realities of user agreements, and recommendations for how email providers might restructure their terms of service to prevent similar ethical dilemmas in the future.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: taking an established philosophical framework (deontology vs. utilitarianism) and systematically applying each to the same factual scenario. This technique allows the writer to show how different moral premises lead to different conclusions without requiring either framework to be definitively "correct."
The paper opens with a narrative hook — the Ellsworth case — before introducing the two competing ethical frameworks. It then develops each framework in depth, incorporates legal analogies and expert commentary, addresses the practical issue of user agreements, and closes with a policy recommendation. This funnel structure moves from specific event to broad principle to actionable solution.
In 2005, John Ellsworth, father of deceased soldier Justin Ellsworth, made national news when he asked to be granted access to his son's email account. Twenty-year-old Justin had been killed in Fallujah on November 13, 2004, by a roadside bomb. Mr. Ellsworth's hope was to collect the emails his son had written while serving in Iraq and fashion them into some kind of memorial. Yahoo refused, citing its promise of privacy to its users — a promise it maintained could not be broken regardless of the circumstances. It was only after a Michigan probate court ordered Yahoo to release the emails that the company complied.
The case reveals two distinct ethical orientations. Yahoo epitomized the deontological way of thinking — the view that norms of right and wrong exist and cannot be breached regardless of the situation. The judge, however, took the family's wellbeing into account and, in doing so, manifested a utilitarian code of ethics.
The case made ripples, and as it did, people took sides. Interestingly, those sides invariably reflected differing religious and political affiliations. The Christian Science Monitor, for instance, appeared to incline toward Yahoo's position, quoting sources that commended the company for its stance. Many bloggers, however, were horrified.
"We thought we had absolute privacy and now we have learned that after our death, a family member could possibly wrangle access to our personal space," one blogger lamented on drudge.com.
"If the soldier had wanted his family to read his email, then he would have CC'd or BCC'd them," another wrote (Leach, 2005).
The Monitor also quoted legal experts, such as Gerald Ferrera, executive director of the Cyberlaw Center at a university in Waltham, Massachusetts, who opined: "I would hope that the Yahoo position here would become a trade practice — that email would only be released if a judge approved it" (Leach, 2005).
The deontological approach asks what is the right or wrong thing to do in a given situation — not what produces the best outcome, but what accords with an established moral rule. Examples of this approach include Biblical law and Kantian moral theory. Both differ from utilitarianism in that they do not depend on end results — namely happiness — for their justification, but rather exist as imperatives: rules that apply to all situations regardless of the consequences. What is right in one situation must be right in all situations. In other words, a person should never kill, regardless of circumstance. The ethics must be unconditional (admitting no exceptions) and universal (applicable to all moral beings).
According to deontological reasoning, Yahoo was in the right. Yahoo had set for itself certain principles, publicized those principles, and promised its clients that it would not disclose their emails. Deontological ethics defines clear standards of right and wrong and rarely, if ever, makes exceptions. Honoring the privacy promise — even in the face of grief — was, from this perspective, the only morally consistent course of action.
Utilitarianism would approach the Ellsworth case by asking how many people would be made happiest by Yahoo allowing the family access to Justin's emails. This is not a straightforward calculation. As Henry Perritt, dean of a law school, noted, "You might have a situation where someone is carrying on an affair and doesn't want his family to know about it if he should die" (Leach, 2005). The content of the emails could cause suffering rather than joy, depending on what they contained.
Given, however, that Justin's family would likely have gained comfort and meaning from reading them, utilitarian philosophers would argue that more people than just the one — Justin himself — stand to benefit. On balance, the emails should therefore be made available. Elaborating further, it is plausible that Justin had recorded heroic or inspiring acts, and that his family might have chosen to publish them. Even more people could be positively affected by such a publication, and the impact would multiply if the content were to spread virally through social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and similar channels. Justin, without his knowledge, might — through the release of his emails — inspire a broader force for good. According to the utilitarian framework, this potential benefit would itself be sufficient reason to release his correspondence, even if he personally would not have wished it.
Given the complexity of these situations, Ferrera and Darrow (2005) recommend that email providers tighten their laissez-faire systems and include certain provisions that users would have to read, sign, and act on before proceeding to use the service. Doing so would prevent many of the ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding digital estates that might otherwise arise.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.