#set text(
  font: "New Computer Modern",
  size: 11pt
)
#set par(
  justify: true,
  leading: 0.68em,
)
#set page(
  header: align(right)[
    <NAME>
  ]
)

#set heading(numbering: "1.a")

= Question 
Should we as a society adhered to a specific type of ethical frameworks or should we mix different frameworks based on context? And if we choose to mix, how can we know how to balance different frameworks?

= The Politics of Artifacts
An example of a technological artifact that has politics is any *social media website*, such as twitter. Lots of political discourse and political discussion happens on these large social media websites and many peoples different viewpoints are shifted or formed based on social media. 

-_The politics is unintentional, since these websites weren't created for the main purpose of political but rather just for different people to connect_

-The designers likely played no role at all in the actual politics since the app wasn't developed for that. 

I think the consequences are the same because it is just leads to shifted viewpoints. 

= Technologies you wouldn't help build?
Personally I don't think I could help build software for defense companies that are known for their weapons harming lots of people. I think there is a lot of politics behind that and I would rather keep my conscious clean.

I also personally think its okay to just do work for money, and it doesn't need to necessarily be particularly good or bad. 

= Utilitarianism

== Act Utilitarianism 
This is when you approach each decision by weighing our the pros and cons of if something produces a net overall good. This framework of thinking does not take into account the means, but rather just the outcome. 

*Morally relevant beings* to me means any individual who's feelings/emotions are important to calculating the overall happiness. I think this includes humans and most animals who can think at a comprehensive level, which would be obviously common pet animals but also other types of animals such as pets. 

*Pros:*
- Focuses on happiness
- Its practical
- Easy to comprehend
*Cons:*
- Takes a lot of energy to do this for every moral decision
- Ignores an innate sense of duty sometimes(?)

== Rule Utilitarianism
The idea that we should all adhere to certain moral rules and if everyone follows those rules, it would lead to maximal happiness
*Pros:*
- Not every moral decision requires utilitarianism calculus
- Reduces moral bias
*Cons:*
- Focuses use on a single scale for evaluating completely different kinds of consequences
- Ignores problem of unjust distribution of good consequences
  - Wrong people can receive this :good" as a result
= Kantianism
Kantianism focuses on the nature of actions rather than the consequences of those actions. 

*Formulation 1:*
Act only in ways where you wouldn't want your actions to become universal law for all. Can everyone, in principle do this without any issue?

*Formation 2:*
Act in a way such that you treat humanity not just as a means of an end but as individual people that you respect. This emphasizes dignity and respecting others for who they are. 

I think that the first formulation about universal law is much more useful because it is a lot easier to apply directly and helps you make smarter decisions.

I feel like the biggest *weakness* in Kant's theories is that it doesn't account for the consequences of actions. I understand that the motivation is important, but the consequences are often just as important. For example, _why do we give consequences to people who accidentally run over/hit others with their car_? I think its important we focus on a balance between motivations/the nature of actions while also paying heed to their results. 

= Mailing Job 
I would personally take the job either way even if I passionately disagreed with them. I think at the end of the day if I don't write the software someone else will, so I might as well. However, there is one thing I would want to know: the context of what the organization is involved with. If it is involved with something that hurts other people, etc then I could not take the job regardless for my consciousness. 

I think if I was running the company I would have an obligation to try to stay unbiased and providing services to anyone who wants to use them, provided they aren't abusing them. I would also have to provide tech support if they purchased my product. 