Ethics Assignment Question #9

9. Allen introduces the case of Glenn Michael.  What did Glenn Michael do?  Allen says he "broke the rules of the game".  Do you agree?  Defend your answer.

The author of this document discusses the ethical means of spying by giving examples to either oppose or defend it. One of these examples is led by Glenn Michael. In essence of trying to win custody for his six year old girl, he took the situation upon himself to do what he thinks is necessary for the future sake of his child. He came to believe there is an underlying principle as such where his ex-wife’s sexuality is presumed to have an adverse effect on the child. He presented the case in a family court and asked if he could present strong evidence to support a heterosexual father is better fit for the child than a homosexual mother who enjoys affairs. Knowing this, he used the court as a base to “provide” strong evidence by legal means. What he did next can be considered legal because all he did was drive to the home of the ex-wife’s and somehow snuck up next to a window to take semi-nude pictures. I think this is where the author meant he broke the rules of the game. Given the task with authority’s permission, he used legal means to obtain pictures of homosexual activity. It was just unfortunate that the lesbians’ affair would leave a window unobstructed while having sex. With the presented evidence, Michael essentially won custody of his child and was later sued in a civil case by Ms. Plaxico for invasion of privacy. Ms. Plaxico ended up losing and filed an appeal which also resulted in her losing.

Given that multiple courts ruled in favor of Glenn Michaels, I disagree with the court proceedings. He emphatically broke the rules of the game. Using an official guided task to do whatever it takes is a cheap win. It is also a cheap win that in this case, resulted in something far more important for this person than a person who does not have a child, who may puts more emphasis on privacy rights. He also broke the rules of the game by driving into someone’s property then walking up to a window and taking pictures. This violates “human privacy” on all levels. While I agree with the public that, if you have a window it should be kept shut, and blinds covered, this was not the case. He proceeded to record, and print photographs of his ex-wife being in the sake of her own home where she felt utmost safe, private, and privileged to engage in the innocent act of her sexual nature by having pleasure with whatever she wanted. Again this justifies that Glenn Michael has broken the rules of the game. There is a certain level of expectations that a human does not violate and this is one of them. If this type of manner is widely accepted (in means of the public), then Glenn Michael should offer/suffer his privacy rights in exchange for violating someone else’s. (Eye for an Eye) For example, what if Ms. Plaxico later snuck up to his window to take pictures of Glenn Michaels nude inside his house while engaging in heterosexual activity as a father with blow-up dolls, and then present the findings as evidence to back her claim up that this is an invasion of privacy. How would the court rule that? As the author has pointed out, there could have been many other ways to determine who could be a better parent, spying the way Michael did, breaks down the rules and boundaries of expectations in life. Why have bathroom stalls and toilets with borders. It should be an oversight where we can all see what we are doing. LOL