After reading the article, it appears that Kantian ethics could be applied to both sides of this argument. As we have now learned in this class, the basis for Kantian ethics is the categorical imperative. That imperative is that people, regardless of desire and interest, will allow for decisions to be made based on what the moral duty is.

That moral duty is what the North Central Regional Library is doing. They believe that they have a duty to their patrons that certain content shouldn’t be viewed within their walls. To them that is their moral duty being fulfilled, no matter what other people’s desires or interests are. Not to mention that people wanting to see the blocked content could go elsewhere to view that content, but that doesn’t matter to the NCRL. They are fulfilling their categorical imperative.

On the other side Kantian ethics could go against what the NCRL is doing. Another aspect of the Kantian ethic is equality. With equality under Kantian ethics, that means that any rule or law that is put into place should be universalized to be seen as ethical. If everyone can be receptive to the new rule or law, then it is an acceptable rule or law ethically. Clearly this is not the case for this instance with the NCRL. There are people out there that do not want certain content blocked and would be further disturbed if this rule were a universal one beyond this one library.

Kantian Ethics has been one of the harder perspectives to wrap my head around in this class but for once, this particular case allows for practical implementation of the Kantian ethic.

Sources: http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/industry-news/washington-library-allowed-to-filter-court-holds/#_, http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/legal-aspects-of-property-estate-planning-and-insurance/s05-02-major-ethical-perspectives.html, Textbook

Week 16: Yes