Determining whether or not the Secret Service was virtuous in hiring Albert Gonzalez, one must understand the virtue ethics. Virtue ethics looks closely at the person performing the action and the consequences of the action. In this case, the action is the Secret Service hiring a cybercriminal and the effects of it. The theory of virtue ethics conveys that a right action is an action that a virtuous person would do in the same situation, the virtuous person embraces and lives out the virtues. Aristotle then elaborates by stating that one acquires moral virtues such as integrity, trustworthiness, and conscientiousness by repeating the appropriate acts. Based on virtue ethics, Albert Gonzalez was not a virtuous man. Although he helped the government by performing good deeds he still committed crimes. His criminal actions outweighed his good deeds. He did not display any virtues regarding integrity, discretion, or kindness. Therefore Albert Gonzalez did not contribute in applicable acts that would build him into …show more content…
The government did not intend to reward Albert Gonzalez by giving him a job, but rather allowed him the opportunity for restitution. Most people would appreciate a chance to redeem themselves, however, this was not the case for Albert Gonzalez. Unfortunately, not all criminals are rehabilitative and Mr. Gonzalez is a perfect example of this. The Secret Service used reason in hiring Albert Gonzalez in that he was knowledgeable about cybercrimes and could think like a criminal, and thus be effective in catching cybercriminals. However, Albert Gonzalez is not a virtuous person as he did not cease the opportunity to rectify his wrongdoings. Persons make mistakes and bad decisions, which doesn’t necessarily mean they are a bad individual. However, people that continue to knowingly break the law are not upstanding citizens and do not deserve to be given repeated chances to prove