Question 1 Cash withdrawal using your ATM card

Search engine to research on my project work

b) Without the ATM machine I would have to go to my bank and queue for sometime before I can check my balance or withdraw money.

Without computer I would have to go to the library and search for books to do my research on my school project.

Question 2 Third World was a term originally used to distinguish nations that neither aligned with the West nor with the East during the Cold War, many were members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Today, however, the term is used to denote nations with the smallest UN Human Development Index (HDI) in the world, independent of their political status. These countries are also known as the Global South, developing countries, least developed countries and the Majority World in academic circles. The economically underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America, considered as an entity with common characteristics, such as poverty, high birthrates, and economic dependence on the advanced countries. It's easy to be an unknowing victim of end-user piracy. A common example of end-user abuse occurs when company employees make copies of software or share an installation CD without buying new licenses. Without the right license, you are ineligible for support, training, or upgrades.

Here are some examples of how end-user piracy happens: Using one licensed copy to install a program on multiple computers or servers Copying disks for installation and distribution, unauthorized imports, OEM versions Acquiring academic or other restricted software to use for an unqualified purpose Swapping disks inside or outside the workplace

From the essay if you are lucky enough to own a computer, you probably can't afford to load it with software. Companies looking for new talent will have to contend with candidates with little or no software experience, thus reducing their effectiveness and their competitiveness in a global market. Software piracy is wrong because it denies a software developer the rightful reward for creating a product. Even if a person is not selling unlicensed copies, the fact that it denies revenue to the producer of that software essentially constitutes theft. The first categorical imperative is enough to make anyone eschew making unlicensed copies of software, however looking at the greater good that it will bring to majority of the people in the third world and how society will gain more from the act of the piracy. For instance most of the youth in third world countries would have known little or nothing about technology if software piracy was a thing of the past. Romanian president as of 2010, .said: "piracy helped the young generation discover computers. It set off the development of the IT industry in Romania. Short Term: Everyone can get software for free (means people who couldnt afford it have access to it now) Long Term: may slow down the pace of designing new software?

While Kantians argue that we should never lie or steal, Consequentialists argue that sometimes not only is lying and stealing morally permissible, but even morally obligatory. That is, not only may we lie or steal, but in some cases we morally should. When is that the case? Whenever lying or stealing would bring about the best consequences. For Consequentialists, ethics involves acting in ways that bring about the best future. A persons actions arent judged based on their intentions, but instead solely on the consequences they produce.

Utilitarianism is probably the most respectable breed of Consequentialism. On what is their theory based? Utilitarians argue that the only thing valued for it is pleasure. Everything else, they say, is only of secondary worth. That is, everything we cherish can be reduced to the pleasure or desire satisfaction it brings us. Our cell phones, our laptops, our football tickets, our chocolate ice creameven our spousesare all valued for the pleasure they bring us, nothing more. (Ask yourself why you value something. Do I value the thing itself, or to the pleasure it brings me?) Since theres no reason to think that any one persons pursuit of pleasure is more important than the nexts, the morally right course of action is the one that brings about the most pleasure overall. Its important to notice that this isnt the same thing as maximizing your personal pleasure. Utilitarianism isnt selfish hedonism. In fact, good Utilitarians will often sacrifice their own happiness for the sake of others, when doing so will bring about more pleasure overall. So if Im a Utilitarian with a Snickers bar, and sharing it with you will bring about more pleasure overall than were I to eat it by myself, I have a moral obligation to share. The Snickers example is pretty easy, but how can we tell for sure which action will produce the most net pleasure when things are more complex? Perhaps we can never tell for sure, since things sometimes turn out differently than we expect. Also, any judgment we make about the pleasure or pain someone else experiences are necessarily uncertain, since we cant get inside anyone elses head. But setting those worries aside, we can still make rough judgments with the information we have available. Anytime were presented with an ethical dilemma, Utilitarianism says we should articulate our options, list all the people potentially affected, the different potential effects on them depending on the course of action we take, calculate the pleasure each option is likely to produce, and choose whichever action will maximize net pleasure. For example, consider the following dilemma. On my way to gimpa I pass an apparent stab victim at hatso. The person is bleeding pretty badly, no one is stopping to help him, and I know first aid. I know Mr. Gabriel canacoo will have a debate at the beginning of class, and I know he doesnt allow make-ups. Should I continue to class or stop and help?

In deciding what to do, recognize that at least three parties will potentially be affected: me, the stab victim, and the stab victims mother. There are of course others, and everyones pleasure and pain counts equallyIm just simplifying the equation to explain the method. To further simplify things Ill quantify each persons pleasure/pain depending on what i do based on a 20point scale from -10 to 10, with -10 being unbearable, excruciating, longlasting pain, and 10 being wonderful, long-lasting ecstasy.

This same scenario could be used in the piracy of software in the third world country; majority of the youth could not have been abreast with technology which is the driving force for the global village if there were no pirated softwares. Copying software from a friend at the work place is a very common thing even in some government institutions. At the tertiary level we all go to the internet to download softwares for our research work. In Gimpa about 95% of students download softwares like logic works, Visio, MySQL and so forth and since Utilitarianism is concerned with maximum net pleasure then software piracy can be argued as ethically right in developing nations. Question 3 Criticisms that might be raised about the argument I made that software piracy is ethical in third world nations may come from Immanuel Kants theory. Hes been dead for 200 years, but philosophers remain in awe of the brilliance of Immanuel Kant. With lasting influence in all four corners of philosophy, his impact on ethics is perhaps most profound. Kant argued that what gives persons intrinsic, infinite value is their ability to reason. The capacity for higher reason facilitates most everything we do, distinguishes us from nonhuman animals, and gives us the freedom to live lives that are genuinely our own. Without reason we couldnt value anythingwe couldnt make value judgments without the faculty of judgment itselfso if we value anything at all, we ought to value reason itself. Giving reason its due entails following two rules: 1) only do things you could rationally endorse everyone else doing in similar circumstances. 2) Always treat others with respect, and never as mere tools. The first rule, sometimes called the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative, precludes lying, stealing, murdering and the like, since if everyone else lied, stole and murdered, the advantage we seek when lying, stealing, or murdering would be undercut. For example, if people always lied when it was to their advantage, no one would trust you if you tried to lie to them. If everyone always stole when it was to their advantage, someone would steal from you whatever you managed to thieve from someone else. And if everyone always murdered when they felt like it, youd soon be a murder victim yourself. In each case, the advantage you sought by committing the act under consideration would be nullified if everybody else took that same action too. Kant argues that since were all roughly equal as far as our ability to reason is concerned, if you couldnt endorse everyone else doing something, its not fair for you to do it either.

The Kantian perspective would contradict the Utilitarianism perspective. The first categorical imperative is enough to make anyone eschew making unlicensed copies of software. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law Assuming the tables were turned and the third world countries in need of the software had actually written it. One could reasonably assume that the third world countries would no longer approve of the developed nations like USA, Canada making pirated copies of their work. Furthermore if piracy became universal, meaning that no one ever paid for it, but relied on pirated copies, the entire industry would collapse and no incentive would remain for software development. We could not will the third world nations actions to be a universal law, so we would have to conclude that making the unlicensed copy would be immoral and therefore ethically not right.