Throughout this course (PHIL 355E), one of the first positions I engaged with was whether scraped data from publicly available platforms like LinkedIn should be permitted. I initially supported this practice by applying a utilitarian lens, emphasizing the potential for societal and economic advantages. I believed that data scraping could lead to more efficient hiring practices, innovative technologies, and greater accessibility or professional information. This viewpoint prioritized the outcome that more people could benefit from smarter algorithms, job-matching tools, or workforce analytics. However, as we explored privacy ethics more deeply, I began to understand that publicly available data carries an expectation of contextual integrity. People may make their information visible to expand professional opportunities, but they do not necessarily consent to having that data harvested, repurposed, or sold at scale. The ethical distinction between visibility and permission became clearer to me. My takeaway is that data ethics must go beyond legal definitions of public access and seriously consider the intentions and expectations of users. Just because information is accessible does not make its unrestricted use ethically sound. 

Another topic that evolved in complexity for me was the ethics of whistleblowing, particularly within the military or government sectors where confidentiality and national security are at stake. I initially argued, again from a utilitarian perspective, that whistleblowing could be a form of higher loyalty to the public, to justice, or to foundational democratic values. Exposing corruption or misconduct, especially in cases involving violations of privacy or human rights, seemed like a moral obligation. However, my thinking has shifted as I began to recognize the serious responsibilities that come with holding sensitive or classified information. People in those roles are trusted to safeguard national interests and must understand what they signed up for. While I still believe whistleblowing can be ethically justified in certain circumstances, I now see that it also involves breaching established duties, and those actions must be measured, intentional, and well-founded. My takeaway is that whistleblowing is not inherently heroic or treacherous, but rather a morally charged decision that required both ethical clarity and personal accountability. 

The final issue that shaped my ethical thinking was the use of hybrid warfare and its alignment with the principles of just war. I analyzed this from the standpoint of Kantian Deontology, focusing on the moral obligation to treat individuals as ends in themselves. Hybrid warfare tactics, including cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure, psychological operations, and digital disinformation campaigns, often bypass traditional battlefields and target people who are not direct combatants. These actions violate the principle of respect for people, reducing individuals to tools for strategic advantage. My view on this has only grown stronger. Hybrid warfare may be effective in modern conflicts, but it undermines the ethical distinction between combatants and civilians. It blurs moral lines and can lead to long-term harm that is not immediately visible. My takeaway is that in both digital and kinetic warfare, ethical restraint must guide strategic decisions. No matter how complex modern conflict becomes, the dignity of human life must remain non-negotiable. 

Throughout this course (PHIL 355E), I was challenged to think beyond surface-level arguments and really examine the values and frameworks that inform my ethical views. Whether we looked at privacy, government accountability, or wartime ethics, I was pushed to understand not just what I believe, but why I believe it. It also helped me realize that different ethical theories can sometimes lead to different conclusions, even when the facts are the same. This complexity made the course both frustrating and rewarding at times, but it definitely helped me mature as a thinker.