Kantian ethics are rooted on duty as can be described using the molarity of the actions performed. His actions can only be perceived as having good will and conflicting to a person’s feelings, which are usually unpredictable (Hinman, 2007). In line with this, Kantian proposes that a two-step process should be used to analyze the ethics of an individual’s ’s actions. First, one must consider whether he/she should allow all individuals to execute the action and secondly, one should assess whether the action in question considers other individuals and enhances communal goals. If the action gives a negative response in the first instance and it only enhances an egotistic goal, then it should not be performed. When this framework is applied to Morris’ action, the action would beperceived to be unethical (Quinn, 2013).Morris, a computer science student, had the knowledge to understand that worms impose a threat that could be destructive to a system.
Morris admits that as he was designing malicious programs before introducing the worm to the system, he introspectively realized that whatever he was doing was wrong. In addition, he admitted that he purposefully designed the malware to distort stored information or cause damage to the target system. The given thought patterns show that Morris was aware about the destructive capability of the malware and thus, the rational thing to do would be not to permit other people to design them or even introduce them to any system (Quinn, 2013).With regard to the second step of the analysis system, it is patent that Morris executed the action for his own egotistic goals. He explains that his actions have always been subjective as they give him pleasure and thrill.
Utilitarian ethics evaluates the morality of particular action based on the result of that action. In such a case, an ethical decision is said to be the one that elevates happiness or the goodness of a given population (Hinman, 2007). If an individual knows that an action will only result in the goodness of the minority of the population, they should then forego the action. In Morris’ case, his actions gave him pleasure but they led to the suffering of others. Consequently, under utilitarian ethics Morris’ actions were unethical and he should not have executed them.