One Volkswagen’s senior engineers, James Robert Liang, pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud regulatory agencies and costumers by cheating in emissions tests. According to documentation provided by the court system, when Liang and other engineers realized that their diesel engine design would not adhere the U.S. emission standards, they created software to manipulate the results on the tests. The company admitted to installing software that was used to deceive the emissions tests on more than 11 million of its vehicles. Liang could face up to 5 years in federal imprisonment and additionally he might have to pay a $250,000 dollar fine. Volkswagen’s behavior will be analyzed through rule utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
Rule utilitarianism
…show more content…
According to Kant it is not morally permissible to lie; it is our duty to always tell the truth regardless of the consequences. Kantian ethics is a non-consequentialist theory. It was Liang’s obligation to be truthful even if the consequences led to the new engine failing the emissions test. Liang’s actions did not meet one of the requirements of Kant’s theory. He did not treat people as “means to end”, but instead he treated them as “mere means.” People were mere means in order to archive higher sales of the vehicles with the faulty engine. The people were simply a tool by means of which he satisfies Volkswagen’s goal. Kant also introduced moral autonomy in his theories. Autonomy states that the will has the ability to independently govern itself rather than adhering to the sanctions of others. The will can be self-motivating. In this situation Liang’s autonomy could justify his decision making, which as previously stated, is immoral. His personal autonomy led to the controversy that landed in Volkswagen’s name. If the case was analyzed using a Utilitarian theory, James Robert Liang actions are still considered immoral. The consequences of the actions taken by Liang did not benefit the majority of society. The actions taken were to provide Volkswagen the greater benefit, rather than the majority of society. Although both theories condemn Volkswagen’s actions immoral, the reasons are different. In Kantian ethics the will was not pure, therefore the actions taken were dishonest. In utilitarian ethics the consequences of the actions did not seek the greater good for
On one of the article was the discussions about the act of dishonesty itself, and how the losses due to the cheating of the emission test stood up to losses incurred by other related problems. The writer also included the financial burden the cheating
When applying utilitarianism, one must choose the action that produces the most amount of good to society, which in this case, Mill would not be in favor of the app Haystack. By discontinuing this app, the urban community as a whole would benefit since there are inequalities among the socioeconomic status’ of the people living in the densely populated cities. While some drivers are willing to pay for a spot each day, such as the upper or upper-middle class, others such as the lower or lower-middle classes might not be able to. Utilitarianism is concerned about the happiness of everyone. In regards to the concept of paying for parking spots, the poor and even the lower-middle will not be happy spending money each day for something that is traditionally
Ethical dilemmas have long been issues that have plagued all of mankind for generations. Since the beginning, the majority of humanity has struggled to do what is right when the answer wasn’t clear. Sometimes, however, the answer is not as difficult to realize, but is much more difficult to accept. In the case of the Gee-Whiz Mark 2 (GWM2), the dilemma that faces its respective company is whether or not the units that are defective should be exported to countries that have no enforceable rules to punish the marketing of said defective units. If the company does not do so and instead decides to scrap the units, there will be a loss of profit. For the company though, the answer is clear; though it may be challenging for its leaders to accept,
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence and thought processes. Immanuel Kant from Prussia, (currently Russia) for whom was influential during the Enlightenment period; and John Stuart Mill from Great Britain whom was present during the Romantic era, explored ideas that they believed would create a more fair and just society, by trying to legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated because it is a concept of right and wrong created by each different religion, region and culture; issues are not black and white.
Normative ethics have received much praise and criticism from well-respected philosophers for many years. Structured by Immanuel Kant, arguably one of the greatest minds in history, Kantian ethics have changed the way people look at what truly makes an action “right.” Kant believed that developing a moral system that was consistent and based entirely on reason was achievable. He urged ethics that are knowable without reference to sense experience, or as he calls “a priori” claims, because they are universal and binding. Kant argued that it is impossible to ground ethics on religion. Instead, he turned to a vague sense of natural law and states that rules exist to rational beings, whether on this universe or any other, simply because they are rational beings.
Ethics in business is a highly important concept, as it can affect a company’s profits, salaries paid to employees and CEOs, and public opinion, among many other aspects of a business. Ethics can be enforced by company policies and guidelines, set a precedent when a company is faced with an important decision, and are also evolving thanks to new technology and situations that arise due to technology usage. Businesses have a duty to maintain their ethical responsibilities and also to help their employees enforce these responsibilities in and out of the workplace. However, ethics and the foundation for them are not always black and white. There are many different ethical theories, however Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontological ethics, and Virtue ethics are three of the most well known theories in existence. Each theory is distinct in that it has a different quality used to determine ethicality and allows for a person to choose which system of ethics works best with both the situation and his or her personal ethical preferences.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Introduction One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights.
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
The standards of ethics serve as guidelines for the conduct of individuals and businesses alike. Uzi Nissan acted h...
Deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to us. As Kant indicates in the idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human beings as ends in and of them instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension of us. It is based on the desires of a person on how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well. In other words, our actions and behaviors applied in our lives, we can see others imitating. For instance, can we see a world where everyone lied willingly? It does not make sense it would defeat the purpose of being able to identify the truth there would be no meaning. The ethical duty is to be truthful.
So now that we have an understanding of Kantian ethics, let’s take that lens and look through it at the VW scandal. One of the key arbitrators of the scandal was the engineer that designed the cheat program, James Laing. You may believe that because VW 's will and duty align in creating the emissions test and Kantian theory doesn 't consider the consequences a factor did James and VW act wrongly? Looking through our hypothetical lens with a Kantian perspective the answer is a resounding yes they did act wrongly. Why VW and James acted wrongly comes from the mere means
...e consequences, as a utilitarian would. While Liang 's decision was immoral, he never treated anyone as simply “mere means.” One could argue that the people who bought the affected vehicles were used as “mere means” to an end. From Liang’s decision, those customers are part of the consequence, so they are not considered. However, the company Volkswagen as a whole did use the customers as a “mere means” to an end as they assumed that a simple cash settlement would have been enough to make up for the customers’ disappointment. From Kant’s moral theory, Liang’s decision to create the illegal software to cheat the EPA emission tests was morally wrong, even if it was due to necessity. While it can be argued that it is also morally wrong from a utilitarian’s point of view, it is important to realize that both theories reached the same conclusion through different processes.
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.
Last Sunday, the company’s then CEO, Martin Winterkorn, issued a brief statement declaring that the Board of Management at Volkswagen AG “takes these findings very seriously.” The findings revealed that the automaker used “defeat devices” to fool emissions testing, effectively concealing the reality that certain cars spew emissions some 10 to 40 times the legal limit.