Equity Sensitivity Versus Egoism †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Equity Sensitivity Versus Egoism. Answer: Introduction: The main issues that can be seen in the case study are mainly related to the ethics of individuals Shin, (Jeong et al. 2015). This case study talks about the unethical breaking or hacking of some of the applicants, into the system of many well known Business Schools. Just in order to see whether they have been selected or rejected for their desired course. However, on being detected and questioned, all those accused, defended themselves telling that they were not IT people, so they couldn't make out what was happening, while others said that they knew they were doing something unethical but lost their sense of justice within the lapse of a moment. Speaking in general term, it was really unethical on the part of the applicants but it was also not wise on the part of the universities to design their confidential pages in such a way that it could be so easily hacked by anyone and everyone just by following some very simple steps. The stakeholders here are all those persons involved in the entire process of the admission procedure in the best business schools namely Harvard business school, MIT, Dartmouth, Duke, Stanford, Camegie Mellon. It basically includes the top management team of all these business schools starting right from the Dean, to the head of the department of business studies or the MBA programme courses of all the respective colleges (Whiteman 2017) It also includes all the teachers and the other staff members who are involved in all these important decisions regarding the admission procedure. Different stakeholders make different decisions like the criteria to be followed for applying in all the different courses, the cut-off marks that is the minimum marks at which the applicants are eligible to apply. It also includes several; other people like the IT officials and the other system management people like the internet experts, cyber cell security experts, ethical hackers etc who are responsib le for designing the pages that would contain t5he confidential information regarding the verdict or decisions made on the admission or rejection of all the respective applicants. By definition, the term egoism means the habit or the interest which is deeply rooted within the individuals for doing things always in their self-interest that is they consider self-interest to be the very root or the foundation of morality (Jeon and Newman 2016). As is seen from the case study, that all those 119 applicants tried and also succeeded in hacking into the Harvard and several other universities systems only to satisfy their own temptation of seeing whether or not their application for the course has been accepted or rejected. It can be said that all these applicants lost their sense of judgment or lost their ability to count upon their ethics only to commit such a shameful deed. Moreover, some of them also tried to defend their deeds by saying that it was not really a very big issue and that it was not right on part of the university authority to question them on their ethics (Zlatanovska 2016). This is the concept by which individuals feel it right to commit such actions that they feel will be useful for themselves or for a majority. It is very much well reflected in this case study as it can be seen that some anonymous hacker really did survey and listed the ways of hacking into the admission procedure system of Harvard and several other business schools, perhaps because he felt that it would be beneficial for all those applicants applying for the business courses in those universities. This is a duty or an attitude of care and responsibility to ensure the safety and well being of others (Hartley 2015). This is well reflected on the part of the University authorities as they have taken all the necessary steps in order to make up the loss that had been created due to this unethical hacking by the applicants in their system. According to the University authorities, it is their responsibility to build up leaders for the bright future of the nation and it is indeed a shameful and unexpected act on the part of those whom the university is supposed to educate. It was said by the Robert Joss, the dean of Stanford business school that perhaps these applicants will now learn a lesson from their mistake (Piacquadio 2017). It mainly talks about the different ways on which a company will be controlled and directed. It can be seen from the case study that the business schools are usually responsible for training their students into successful leaders by imbibing within them the ability to take good decisions and make a change in the world. Nowadays, there are a lot of scandals and public abuses on the corporate governance, as a result of which it is important to inculcate within the individuals the qualities of honesty, integrity, strong moral and ethical values etc (Deo and Farik 2015). Diffusion of responsibilities This is a socio psychological concept by which people often refuse to take any responsibility in presence of others as was seen in case of the accused applicants who tried to escape the blame saying that they did nothing apart from following the steps given by an anonymous hacker who had already tried this unethical hacking. From the corporate governance point of view, it is because of these unethical activities are done by several individuals that ruin the reputation of the different corporate houses. It also says that the corporate houses are responsible for governing the affairs of the company in such a way that the company can be directed properly towards achieving its goals. Risk mitigating measures like increased safety, password and ID authentication, cyber cell and cyber crime detection experts etc must be adopted to increase the security of all the confidential information of the company or university in this case. Risk minimizing measures like Increased safety, Password and ID authentication, Cyber cell Cyber crime detection experts These measures can be adopted for mitigating the risk of unethical; hacking practices and apart from t5his, the values of ethics, morality, honesty etc must also be incorporated among all individuals who will prevent them from adopting such dishonest means. Reference list Deo, S. and Farik, M., 2015. Information Security-Recent Attacks In Fiji.International Journal of Scientific Technology Research,4(8), pp.218-220. Hannes, K., 2015. The fifth principle: renegotiable ethical frameworks! A commentary to Goodyear-Smith and colleagues article on Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees published in BMC Medical Ethics (request for waiver of publication fee denied). Hartley, R.D., 2015. Ethical Hacking Pedagogy: An Analysis and Overview of Teaching Students to Hack.Journal of International Technology and Information Management,24(4), p.6. Jeon, G. and Newman, D.A., 2016. Equity sensitivity versus egoism: A reconceptualization and new measure of individual differences in justice perceptions.Journal of Vocational Behavior,95, pp.138-155. Piacquadio, P.G., 2017. A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism.Econometrica,85(4), pp.1261-1276. Shin, J.H., Jeong, S.H., Lee, M.H. and Yang, Y., 2015. Experiences of ethical issues and needs for ethics education in clinical nurses.Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration,21(3), pp.327-339. Whicher, D., Kass, N., Saghai, Y., Faden, R., Tunis, S. and Pronovost, P., 2015. The views of quality improvement professionals and comparative effectiveness researchers on ethics, IRBs, and oversight.Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,10(2), pp.132-144. Whiteman, N., 2017. Accounting for ethics: towards a de-humanised comparative approach.Qualitative Research, p.1468794117724499. Zlatanovska, K., 2016. Hacking and hacktivism as an information communication system threat. InHandbook of research on civil society and national security in the era of cyber warfare(pp. 68-101). IGI Global.