Introduction Volkswagen (VW), one of the world’s largest automakers, was recently found guilty of utilizing technologies in their vehicles that falsely displayed emissions readings when tested (NY Times). Multiple employees of the company have been prosecuted, due to their involvement in designing software to allow VW’s new “clean diesel” engines to pass “strict” U.S. standards, while delivering the performance VW sought after (LA Times). Furthermore, VW was found to have rigged cars not just in the US, but worldwide. Given the company’s large influence on a market dependent on consumer trust, their decision to cheat regulations, in order to promote their product as “clean,” also went against the duty to follow established moral law.
Kant’s
…show more content…
The Formula of Universal Law requires that an individual’s actions can will one’s maxim to become a universal law (Kant in His Own Words). This logic means that Liang’s choice to aid VW in cheating emissions tests was his decision that cheating fits in as a law of nature, which contradicts his duty to tell the truth, even if his personal desires were at stake. The second categorical imperative, the Law of the End-in-Itself, requires actions to impact humanity as an end, and never as a means. Liang lied for extended periods of time to uphold the respectful image of himself and of Volkswagen, as opposed to respecting humanity as an end, which would have required him to tell the truth about emissions from vehicles he worked on. Kant’s final Law of Autonomy requires the will of every rational being to exemplify “a will that legislates universal law” (Kant in His Own Words). This law requires individuals to ensure their behavior can provide a universal law, as opposed to the first law which requires behaviors to follow universal laws. Thus, the established importance of telling the truth invalidates Liang’s actions as fitting the requirements of Kant’s third formulation, and Liang’s actions can ultimately be determined as immoral in this
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
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.
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Thus, Kant gives cases in which duty and self-interest clash, with the goal that it is clear that the operator is persuaded singularly obligation. He highlights the two cases of cooperative attitude that Kant refers to are the to a great degree distressed individual who chooses not to confer suicide since it is unethical, and immoral. An individual's duty as per Kant, takes the type of the ethical law. The moral law, dependably applies to us, and applies to everybody in the same way. In light of this, Kant depicts the moral law as a categorical imperative that is an exemption command. The moral law is widespread hence very diverse for every individual. Conversely, moral laws are generally applied to each operator in the same way. Kant gives various diverse plans of the categorical imperative, which he claims are comparable to each other in importance. The most well known is the universal law formulation. As a universal law, it requires that an individual ought to act just in a manner that the principle you act under can turn into an all inclusive law. Kant contends that it is constantly shameless to
He would start out by saying that since Liang’s intentions were to benefit himself and his company, he did not act on his good will, and did not act according to his duty of respecting the moral law. If everyone in the world did what Liang did, lie and act selfishly, then the world would cease to exist because no one would trust each other and nothing would ever get accomplished, improved, or function as it should. Utilitarian views would see Liang’s actions as morally right since the consequences of his actions provided more pleasure than pain for himself and the company that he represents. When confronted about the issues, and Liang lied to the government, he was doing so to prevent more panic and consequences on himself, while also making the company look better. If he were to tell the truth right away, which is what Kant believes is always the right choice, he probably would have been fired right away and sent to prison for fraudulently tampering with governmental data and breaking the law. Even though these things did end up happening to him eventually, utilitarians would say that since the consequences of lying and creating a device that tampered with the true results of a test made himself and the company look better than they would have if the results showed the truth, the pleasure was more than the pain and therefore was a morally right decision. One could also say
When we consider the case of the Ford Pinto, and its relative controversy, through the varied scope of ethical viewpoints, the results might surprise us. From a personal standpoint, as a consumer, the idea of selling a vehicle to the masses with such a potentially devastating flaw is completely unethical. When we consider the case from other directions and other ethical viewpoints, however, it makes it clear that often ethics are a matter of perspective and philosophy. It’s also clear that there are cases where more information will muddy the waters, rather than clear them.
Kant’s categorical imperative is a method of determining an action’s morality based on the action being objectively necessary, and is the first of two types of imperatives. Such an action is good in itself, not just as a means of achieving some other purpose. Because Kant believes all people poses rational will, the categorical imperative applies to everyone, guiding him or her to act in the same way regardless of his or her circumstances or bias. It disregards the consequences of an action and only judges moral or immoral based on the intentions. Such an imperative is “Do not lie,” which Kant believes is a maxim that holds true in all cases. The categorical imperative is based on the single notion that one should act only on maxims that can reasonably and without contradiction be made a universal law. As such, it does not consider the details of circumstance and holds true universally, because it relies solely on a priori concepts. I will further explain Kant’s formulations of this imperative momentarily. Now that we have just seen the first type of imperative,...
The Volkswagen emissions scandal is a series of choices made by the company and the people employed by Volkswagen to install a "cheat" button to alter the amount of emissions produced only under testing situations. Ordinarily, all vehicles on the road that run off of gasoline have a set about of CO2 and other harmful emissions produced by the burning of gasoline. Violation of these rules can result in fines and recalls. Due to an increased attention on car companies to fight global warming and air pollution a number of emissions have lowered in the over the year for tighter regulation on the amount of CO2 produced. Consequently, this reduction in the amount of CO2 produced is the source of the scandal. This change may come across as minor,
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
In 2014, researchers from West Virginia found out that recent models of Volkswagen vehicles were emitting up to 40 times the allowed levels of nitrogen oxides (2). These vehicles had a special software that would determine when the vehicle was in laboratory testing conditions, and the software would then alter the vehicle 's functionality to emit the legal amount of nitrogen oxides allowed by the EPA. The software was found in around half a million vehicles in the United States. In addition to the bad publicity, the Volkswagen scandal will cost the company at least $15.3 billion dollars in compensation to the owners of the affected vehicles (3). In 2016, Volkswagen engineer James Liang pleaded guilty for being a crucial part in developing the illegal software (3). The software was created because Volkswagen was unable to meet the rigorous EPA emission standards. Therefore, a small team of engineers including James Liang decided to cheat the emission exams to allow Volkswagen vehicles to be sold in the U.S.
In an age marked by moral relativism and cultural pluralism, Kant's emphasis on the universality of moral principles offers a robust response to the challenges of moral skepticism and cultural relativism. The categorical imperative, with its emphasis on moral consistency and universality, provides a rational framework for adjudicating moral disputes and resolving ethical dilemmas in a pluralistic society. Moreover, Kant's emphasis on the intrinsic value of the good will and the primacy of moral duty intersects with contemporary debates on ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. In contrast to theories that prioritize individual self-interest, social utility, or personal character traits, Kant's deontological ethics underscores the moral significance of rational agency and the unconditional obligation to act in accordance with moral duty.
Toyota issues in automotive industry resulted from a lack of moral and ethical obligations to loyal customers. In fact, people encounter ethics at one time or another. A business expectation is to act in manner upholding society values. According to authors Trevino and Nelson, (2004) states, “a set of moral principals or values, or the principals, norm, and standards of conduct governing a group or individual.” On the other hand, three ethical criteria determined in this discussion like obligation, moral ideas, and consequences which this article highlights an ethical dilemma with automobiles makers.
The universal law formula of the categorical imperative ("the CI") is an unconditional moral law stating that one should “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is the motivating principle or reason for one’s actions. A moral act is an act by which its maxim can become universal law that would apply to all rational creatures. As a universal law, all rational creatures must act according to this maxim. The CI requires one to imagine a world where the maxim one wishes to act by becomes a universal law, in which all people must act according to this maxim. If one wills this maxim to become universal law that all rational creatures must follow, but there is a contradiction in conception or will, than this maxim cannot become universal law, and thus, the act is not morally permissible. A contradiction in conception occurs when by willing one’s maxim to become universal law, one is imagining a logically impossible world, for there is a contradiction in the very idea of every rational creature acting on this maxim. In contrast, a contradiction in will does not yield a logically impossible world, but there is a contradiction in willing what it is one proposes to do and in wanting the maxim to become universal law.
By the reading of it, Volkswagen management expressed what seemed like genuine shock when the EPA and California’s Air Resources Board revealed their joint findings regarding the automaker’s manipulation of US emissions testing for diesel cars outfitted with a particular 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine.