Should Life Be 360? Student Responses

In our April newsletter, a group of ninth-graders released their “Should Life Be 360” case study. This month, the students broke into two groups and found two perspectives when considering the “right vs. right” ethical dilemma: In this scenario, what is Amy’s most ethical choice?

When Caring Becomes Controlling: A Consequentialist Perspective on Teen Privacy
Adeline Brugg ’28 and Harli Glatt ’28

The case “Should Life Be 360?” highlights many ethical values that are crucial when coming to a decision. Based on the values of privacy, trustworthiness, and autonomy, as well as the framework of consequentialism, it is unethical for Amy to use the tracking app on Elliana without her consent.

From a consequentialist perspective, which is a framework emphasizing that actions should be judged solely on their consequences, the use of Life360 could lead to negative outcomes. When a teenager finds out they are being tracked without their permission, it can create feelings of betrayal, which could damage the individual’s relationships with their parents. It also compromises Elliana's autonomy because it prevents her from learning how to make responsible choices on her own, without influence from her parents. This is a skill she will need, as her parents will not always be able to make decisions for her; she must learn this early on. There are also emotional consequences that using the app could cause, such as increasing parents’ anxiety by feeling the need to monitor their children. Therefore, using a tracking app without Elliana’s consent is not ethically acceptable.

Next, privacy is a fundamental component of a healthy relationship, especially between parents and their teenagers. Elliana has earned a degree of privacy because of her age, but also because she serves as a role model for her younger brother. When a teenager feels that their privacy is respected and their boundaries are honored, they are more likely to communicate openly with their parents, which creates a stronger relationship. If Amy chooses not to respect her daughter’s privacy, it could lead Elliana to feel more hesitant to share aspects of her life. In this case, Amy’s efforts to stay involved in her daughter’s life could end up being counterproductive.

Another value highlighted in the case is autonomy, specifically Elliana’s autonomy to choose whether to download the location-tracking app. Amy and Elliana’s relationship is built on respect for each other’s choices, and by choosing to monitor her, Amy undermines her daughter’s autonomy. For teenagers, developing autonomy is a crucial part of growing up. When parents don’t respect their teenager’s autonomy, they risk stopping important growth and are also damaging mutual trust. Parental control that takes away a teenager’s right to make their own choice could feel invasive, even if done with good intentions. Rather than feeling supported, Elliana might begin to feel that her mother is controlling, which could lead to emotional disconnection.

A Duty to Download: 360 Degrees of Parental Love
Chloé Jenkins ’28, Krisana Manglani ’28, Paige Sulkes ’28, Chelsea Chen ’28

Whereas the case study of “Should Life be 360?” highlights the importance of autonomy for Elliana, it is essential that alternative values supporting the downloading of the app, such as responsibility, safety, and honesty, be taken into consideration. Based on these values and with the support of the ethical framework of deontology, which emphasizes and focuses on fulfilling duties and obligations, we can conclude that it is ethical for Amy to install Life360 on Elliana's phone. 

First, the value of responsibility is applicable in a deontological framework because of Amy’s obligations as Elliana’s mother regarding the protection of her physical safety and well-being. Deontology, which addresses an individual’s duties and responsibilities, is a major factor in this case, especially considering that Elliana is still a minor. Because she is under the age of 18, her mother’s responsibilities are to protect her daughter from any possible harm and ensure her well-being. In order to do so, the decision fulfilling this duty would be to have access to Elliana’s location in case of emergency. In this situation, Amy’s intention is not to invade Elliana’s privacy or limit her autonomy, but instead to keep her safe. 

Downloading Life360 ensures her daughter’s safety, which is one of Amy’s key duties as Elliana’s mother. As crime rates increase in their area, Amy believes it is more important than ever to make sure Elliana is safe, even if it means not honoring Elliana’s rights to privacy. At 16, Elliana is at the age when she can legally obtain her permit to drive. As Life360 also lets parents monitor the speed at which their child is driving, Amy has a duty to Elliana to protect and support her as she faces greater risks as a new driver. In addition, the purpose of the app is to inform users — especially parents — about their children’s whereabouts and, consequently, well-being.

Too, although Amy violated Elliana’s trust by installing Life360 without her consent or giving an explanation, it is important to acknowledge that this could lead to a big step forward in their relationship. The app prompts Elliana to be more honest about her whereabouts, and has the potential to prove to her mother that she is truly responsible. Amy has already acknowledged that Elliana is verifiably mature, so this encouraged honesty simply acts as confirmation. Transparency in a volatile relationship, such as the one between a teenager and their parent(s), sets boundaries and promotes trust between those involved. Amy may be taking a risk out of concern for her daughter, but there could be tremendous positive consequences to come out of this dilemma. Taking this step will have long-term benefits, even though it may not seem to in the present. By treating her daughter with respect and maintaining good communication, Amy can be confident that she has made an ethical decision.

Despite Amy’s intentions and obligations, we could not ignore the fact that the decision to keep Life360 installed on her phone could restrict Elliana’s autonomy. However, even though Life360 will be tracking where Elliana goes, it will not restrict her from doing what she enjoys. In the case study, we know Elliana is trustworthy and is her brother’s role model. This shows that before the downloading of Life360, she wasn’t crossing any boundaries her parents had set, so she should still be able to do her normal activities even with this new app on her phone.