My Answer to HWcase5, Q3

Me: "I'm sending you a Case Study I put together with some facts and questions about the case. I want you to teach me about the ethics via Socratic Questioning. Ask me a question about the case, I'll answer, and then ask another follow-up question."

ChatGPT: "Great—thanks for sharing this case. Let's dive in using Socratic questioning to explore the ethical layers.

Here’s a starting question:

If the U.S. were to adopt propaganda tactics similar to its adversaries—perhaps spreading exaggerated or misleading information to support a just cause—would that be ethically justifiable? Why or why not?"

Me: "I think it is ethically justifiable because they are spreading false information for a good cause. It might leave a bad taste in your mouth but the goal behind it is good."

ChatGPT: "That's a thoughtful answer—you're leaning toward a consequentialist perspective, where the outcome justifies the means.

Let’s dig a bit deeper:

If we allow ourselves to use falsehoods for good causes, how do we then draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable deception? And who gets to decide what qualifies as a “good” cause?"

Me: "The line between acceptable and unacceptable should be drawn at actively harming people or their livelihood, and a good cause should be something along the lines of upholding the law of the land"

ChatGPT: "That makes sense—you're trying to ground justification in harm reduction and legal norms, which adds an ethical boundary to otherwise murky tactics.

But let’s explore that boundary:

If propaganda doesn’t directly harm someone, but it undermines trust in public institutions or erodes belief in truth over time, does that still count as harm? Why or why not?"

Me: "I don't think it counts as harm because I think people need to be wary of putting complete trust or faith in any kind of public institution or information"

ChatGPT: "That’s a strong stance—you’re emphasizing individual responsibility over institutional paternalism. There’s real merit in empowering people to think critically."