Understanding Two Conflicting Theoretical Interpretations of Net NeutralityCyberspace is generating a new sense of urgency for protection and privacy of individuals’ personal information. Anonymity is decreasing while security is increasing in a society that is so heavily connected to the World Wide Web. Information has become the target of many large multi-million dollar companies and government institutions. It is an alarming revelation that companies and institutions have access to personal information with the sole intention to maximize financial gain or what the government feels is “security”. It is clear that privacy has become the number one commodity for end users on the Internet (Boulos, 2008).
It goes without saying, that net neutrality is a necessity for many people; however, it poses many ethical and moral questions about privacy and autonomy. This paper will investigate these moral and ethical debates that encompass the battle for net neutrality from a deontological standpoint, as well as, a utilitarian standpoint. Since the Internet is not regulated with the same set of rules and laws found in real world, net neutrality to a Deontological theorist would be viewed as a moral and ethical dilemma. Therefore, autonomy on the Internet seems to be non-existent, and rightness and wrongness are skewed by the idea that their individual actions hold no real world consequence. Deontologists do not focus on consequence; however, the focus is on reason and the universality of an individuals actions, which Kant calls the categorical imperative (Pogge, 1998). It is the universality of ones actions, in particular the end user, that causes the moral issue, for instance, a deontologist would argue that an individual on the streets a.
.ves have created a contradiction within themselves, a double edge sword that appears to only offer one beneficial part of the internet at the cost of a negative aspect of the internet. It is evident that net neutrality is a morally difficult situation and it is clear through these two theories that neither of them are perfect. Although, it seems in this case that deontology is the most morally correct and just. Privacy is a major commodity by today’s standards; consequently, the end user cannot expect privacy from the very companies that he or she steals from. Deontology stands for equality so you cannot expect to have one without the other.
It is the harsh reality to the ever-changing use of the Internet and regulations at both ends of the spectrums, institutions through to the end-user, will create autonomy and reason that regulate unjust actions.
