Sandals Resort case study

When writing something online, it is automatically open for the public to read. There are no barriers and whatever you wrote is “fair game” for anyone else to stumble upon. Today, there are various viewpoints and opinions written about just about any topic you can think of. However, if one is to write something online anonymously, can they be held accountable?

I think this is clearly demonstrated in the court case concerning Sandals resort chain and an anonymous writer in May 2011. The issue at hand is that pseudo name, John Anthony sent messages to the Sandals resort chain referring that the hiring methods were inappropriate and unlawful from the email address jft3092@gmail.com. This individual went into detail abut the hiring methods. The NY Supreme Court Justice however said that Sandals was not entitled to the information that Anthony wrote and that is was not defamatory because it was an opinion. The case goes on and as it turns out, the court disagreed with resort chain for various reasons.

Is it ethical??

I think that people have the right to type with what they want within reason. Obviously, if it is defamatory then there is no question, it should not be written. It is unethical to talk poorly or inappropriately about a certain person or company in my opinion. Int his situation I think that the anonymous emailer should be penalized for talking badly about the company by a slap on the wrist- more of a warning. Otherwise, I think it is fair game, it really is just an opinion statement. To another individual their hiring methods maybe be appropatire. It is simply about who you ask.

It's All Political

Since a young age I have been taught the Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated. And for majority of my life, I would like to think that I have followed this rule and kept up my end of the deal. But what happens when I am not the one deciding how people deserve to be treated. If everyone is nice to each individual they come across, assuming they don’t want to be treated badly, then the world would be nice and dandy place. WRONG. That isn't exactly realistic. That’s why we have villains and bullies and just your average grumpy people; the world isn't perfect. I guess my question is: when Mill's Principle of Utility is put into play, how do we know who is coming up on the good end of the deal? The principle states that we should "seek the greatest happiness for the aggregate whole." So are you just S.O.L if you're not in the majority whole?

This immediately reminds me of political campaigns. Every four years we have someone “x” amount of people run for office and only one person becomes President of the United States. What if you didn’t vote for this person? What if you don’t believe in his or her morals and background? I suppose you just have to wait until the next four years. Realistically, there is no way to please everyone but in our society I suppose we try to do what is best for the largest amount, that way you piss of the least amount of people possible. Seems pretty political if you ask me.

To learn more about Mill’s Principles please visit:

http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Crs/MILL.pdf