The Ethics of the Xbox

The Ethics of the Xbox In today’s world, information technology has not only changed the way we live, learn and work, but also the way we entertain. The impact of technology evolvement on our life is thus by far profound, either positive or negative. In the case of Brandon Crisp that we discussed in Business Ethics class about the Ethics of the Xbox, it unfortunately turned out to be on the negative side. Brandon Crisp, a 15-year-old teenager living in Barrie, Ontario, ran away from home after his Xbox was taken away by his parents due to excessive play. He disappeared on Oct 13th 2008 and was found to be dead three weeks later under a tree in the woods only 2 kilometers away from where he abandoned his mountain bike. In reaction to this tragedy, Microsoft (the manufacturer of Xbox) not only relaxed its privacy protocol by releasing Crisp’s online gaming account information to facilitate the process of finding him, but also contributed $25,000 to a reward fund for any information on him. Microsoft’s action was no doubt a goodwill deed that deserved accolade from a third party’s perspective. However, when measured using business ethics models, it is something worthwhile of further scrutiny and reflection. According to the ethical decision-making model (Graham Tucker’s 5-questions) introduced in business ethics class, before making a decision, we should consider the following questions first:
• Is the decision profitable?
• Is the decision legal?
• Is the decision fair?
• Is the decision right?
• Is the decision good for future sustainable development? Unfortunately, we can only answer “yes” for the legal question. First of all, there’s no profitability involved. Second, to compensate for something that the company is not responsible for is neither fair nor right to the shareholders. By setting up a controversial precedent for the future, it will not be future sustainable either. After all, Microsoft is only the product manufacturer who