The German automotive company, Volkswagen, was recently involved in an unethical car emission scandal. James Liang, Volkswagen engineer, pleaded guilty to creating and embedding a software program inside over 500,000 Volkswagen 's diesel cars to manipulate the emissions rating for the cars. This software program would allow the cars that had high levels of nitrogen oxide emissions to pass the car emission tests and to be sold in the United States. Some cars had up to forty times the legal standard limit of car emissions. This is an unethical decision by Volkswagen and James Liang because they did not go about their actions with good will. Additionally, Volkswagen did not consider the consequences if someone were to catch the company producing The foundation for a rule utilitarianism approach is the consequences involved in a situation. Rule utilitarianism defines the right action an individual should take is the action that has the least amount of consequences involved, and brings the most happiness to an individual. Whereas, Kant’s theory, does not focus on the consequences of the outcome, rather than the reasoning or intentions why a person chose to go about a situation. Additionally, Kant’s moral theory is tied to the Golden Rule and people should not be used just as a means to benefit another person’s The term “mere means” is when someone goes about an action and does not consider the other people involved in the situation. By having this software within the vehicle that provided false pollution control readings, Volkswagen made a false advertisement to their customers stating the car is safe to use. Here, Volkswagen is using their customers just to sell diesel vehicles for their company to benefit. Additionally, some of the cars would emit almost forty times the legal standard for gas emissions for diesel cars in the United States. In this situation, Volkswagen’s actions used the United States citizens as “mere means”, and did not consider what the effects of their decision could have on the country or for the United States’ Clean Air
Rule utilitarianism must find a balance between rules and utility to try and maximize human flourishing. Williams and Harwood both critique utilitarianism, but an ideal rule utilitarianism is able to satisfy any critique posed. An ideal rule utilitarianism would be able to avoid the problem of rule worship while still allowing the rules to carry sufficient meaning. Rule utilitarianism should refine rules to become more specific, which will hopefully lead to the ideal form of rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is able to respond to the criticisms proposed by Williams and Harwood by making more specific rules that will coincide with the greatest happiness
Increasing environmental awareness, coupled with a responsible American government and improved technology, have all contributed to the comeback of low-and zero-emissions vehicles in the US. It remains to be seen whether the automakers and oil companies will once again work to halt this progress, or embrace it as the technology of a more responsible future.
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
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
Research has proven that there are serious concerns with E15 gasoline and its effect on motor vehicles. Unfortunately, a majority of car owners have never heard of E15 gasoline and are unaware of the damage it can cause to their vehicles. Changing the quality of gasoline available to consumers without their knowledge is irresponsible and unscrupulous. The fact that the government has chosen to ignore industry concerns pertaining to this new blend of gasoline demonstrates they are not following the accepted rules of morally right behavior and therefore they are guilty of unethical behavior.
Utilitarian thought and theory are based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which exclaims that actions are considered moral only when they promote universal happiness and the absence of pain. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is superior to utilitarianism because Kant’s Categorical Imperative allows for actions to be judged case by case, as opposed of what’s considered to be the best for maximizing happiness.
In utilitarianism priority of justice is possible in view of the priority of its bases. Justice is more than just one of the values, because its principles are derived independently of the other values. Unlike other practical principles, the moral law is not intended to advance any random interests and goals. Justice in utilitarianism does not include any ideas about welfare. Since the idea of justice precedes all purely empirical purposes, justice has a position in relation to the welfare and sets its limits.
The quality, the happiness, the good thing that you can give the consumer is the end, your sense of duty to do these things is the means. Looking at things from this perspective, Fords actions were unethical. The Kantian idea causes me believe that Ford should have put the potentially life-saving part into the Pinto, not because they have a moral obligation to produce safe vehicles, or because they want praise for looking out for the safety and well-being of their consumers, but because it’s the right thing to do. Clearly, Ford didn’t do that. Based on the case study and the information presented, they allowed financial data and projections to dictate the decision, whether morally right or
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.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk-benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change (Legget, C., 1999). This was a ground breaking decision because it failed to use the common standard of whether a harm was a result of an action on trespass or harm as a result of an action on the case (Ferguson, A., 2005).
The moral philosophy of Utilitarianism includes a calculation of happiness, in which actions are considered to be good if they produce happiness and evil if they produce pain. Utilitarianism also considers at what extent happiness can be created not just for an individual, but also others whom may be affected. By following a Utilitarian moral philosophy, a person can assure the best possible situation for the most amounts of people affected by every action they make. Utilitarianism is the centered on happiness, as a concept, and tries to promote the idea. The vision here is that if all people seek happiness, it will result in the happiness for all humans and animals. In the case that one does not produce happiness, one should also strive to reduce unhappiness. As Utilitarianism is wholly focused on the utility of a person’s actions, it is called a “consequentialist” theory. I argue that Utilitarianism is the best moral philosophy to follow due to its versatility, ethicality, and production of happiness for all.
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.
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.