The ethical principle of Facebook as An Emotional Contagion Essay

The ethical principle of Facebook as An Emotional Contagion - Essay Example An analysis of this experiment in light of the utilitarian theory of ethics shows that this experiment is morally justifiable. This is because, although the experiment violates some individual rights of the subjects of the experiment, the experiment findings, however, is quite useful and can be used in many ways; this, in essence, means that the experiment will lead to making the majority of people happy. This, therefore, means that that experiment is morally justifiable in light of the utilitarianism.The experiment is, however, morally unjustifiable in light of the Kantian deontology. This is because the subjects of the experiment were used not as human beings with intrinsic worth, i.e ends in themselves, but rather as means to some end. This is because the experiment violated some individual rights of the subjects of the experiment. This fact, therefore, shows that the experiment is unethical in light of the Kantian deontology.According to my moral worldview, this experiment is mor ally unjustifiable. This is because the experiment clearly violates some basic rights of its subjects. Although, the experiment can, of course, benefits many people, the experiment doesn’t take cognizance of the individual rights of its subjects. This fact, therefore, shows that the experiment is morally unjustifiable. To avoid this moral problem, future experiments and research in technology involving human beings should be done only after getting the consent of the intended subjects of the experiment.

Rally Round the Trade Name Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Rally Round the Trade Name - Essay Example Despite the fact that Gabby’s surname is Rally, it is not lawful for her to use it for her piazza business in the same jurisdiction as occupied by Rally motors. This is because, for one, a trade name is given under two different laws; common law and trade name registration law according to Tatum (2010). Under common law, an individual who first uses a certain trade name in a particular region for a particular purpose has exclusive rights for that name in the particular areas for that specific purpose. As a result, Gabby is not supposed to use her surname in conjunction with her business in the region. Doing this amounts to violating the law and infringing on trade name rights. According to intellectual property law, it is illegal to infringe on a trade name whether one posses the name or not. The issue of trade name protection goes beyond zones of reputation, expansion, and marketing despite being the first to be used in the region. Since Rally is linked with both pizza and motors, it is not a big conflict as it would happen if Gabby had decided to name her car dealership business as Rally Used Cars. It is unlawful for a similar business owner to possess two confusing names for his/ her business. Therefore, there is no problem with Rally’s association with pizza if only she does not use her name confusingly. This is because using this name does not imply that people might confuse pizza with cars. However, when two business uses the same trade name in a similar market region this can lead to a lot of confusion. The truth that Herman started utilizing the name Rally around forty years ago, protects him under both trade name registration law and the under the common law. He is also protected by the fact that he started using the trade name in the region first, before Gabby.