Dieselgate Scandal

1327 Words3 Pages

The recent events regarding Volkswagen’s ‘Dieselgate’ scandal have raised a plethora of serious ethical questions that have yet to be answered. In 2006, Volkswagen began advertising the “clean diesel” car, an eco-friendly alternative to electric and hybrid vehicles. The supposed “clean diesel” engine claimed to pass all the strict standards enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) while increasing fuel efficiency and performance at a reasonable price point.

James Liang, a former Volkswagen engineer, and his team were instructed to design a ‘clean diesel” engine. As the deadline approached, the team “could not design a diesel engine that would meet the stricter U.S. emissions standards” . As a result, Liang and his team developed …show more content…

An act that would disobey these imperatives would be a contradiction to reason itself and therefore immoral according to Kantianism. This set of commands can help formulate and test a maxim, a subjective principle upon which one acts. Maxims justify one’s actions and are limited to an individual. In order for a maxim to be valid, it cannot have any situational exceptions. Overall, the maxim must pass the categorical imperative, which in turn determines one’s duty that finally results in an act with moral value if the duty and will are …show more content…

If Liang made his decisions solely based on the consequences, he would never have created the illegal software. His actions not only deceived customers but also resulted in irreversible damage to both the environment and to the health of everyone who came into contact with these vehicles. The repercussions of his actions were too extreme to be considered morally ethical. Similarly if Liang were a moral egotist, one who believes that everyone acts with one’s best interest in mind, he once again would not have developed the defeat device. Following this theory, any action that could damage his reputation or career would have never occurred. In addition, Liang did not treat Volkswagen consumers or society as a whole but “merely as a means”, which is morally impermissible according to Kantian ethics. If Liang were to treat these people as “mere means’ he would be acting for his personal benefit rather than for someone else. Liang’s actions were motivated by his duty to his supervisors at Volkswagen rather than the consequences of his actions; therefore, the theory of Kantianism is most applicable to this

Open Document