I chanced upon quite an interesting site providing opinions on how nanotechnology can be ethical.

On the Early Show, viewers were asked if designer babies were ethical. Medical specialists have predicted that in 10-20 years time, designer babies will be more wide-spread. On one hand, this is a private domestic choice of individuals and parents. However, is it not performing plastic surgery on a child disregarding her/his choice and opinion even before they are born?

To me, the article demonstrates how online media activism can democratize the state and illustrates social responsibility. With greater online activism, more alternative views are heard. This translates to a utilitarian society where citizens will have the right to voice their views and also choose which opinions they are more incline to that matter, which is ethical to society as a whole. This also does not promote individualism as an individualistic or dominant idea is not forced onto the whole community. Next, if more media activism is actually allowed, it may promote social responsibility as citizens now have a part to play in society. Online participation will be in areas that matter more, like the country's politics, and economy, instead of trivial matters. Singapore should follow in the footsteps of London in that sense so that citizen journalism here can be more credible.

This case occurred recently this year. Following a popular TV series 'Gossip Girl', a group of senior students from Ngee Ann Polytechnic targeted Year One students from the School of Film and Media Studies (FMS). Blogs were created to defame the students by sparking off online rumors about them. The blog postings affected friendships as students became very suspicious of each other and started pointing fingers. The image of FMS was also affected especially when read by people outside the school. Though the blogs have been shut down, they have generated over 18000 hits. It is still uncertain who set up the blogs. Ethical Question: With regards to freedom of speech, is there an imaginary ethical line in cyberspace which when over-stepped, must lead to punishment? Who decides when or how this line is being over-stepped? What and how severed should the consequences be? This is because the culprits we practicing free speech but there was a price their victims had to pay. In this case, according to teleological theories, there is neither utilitarianism nor ethical altruism.