Kantian Ethics: James Robert Liang's Consequences Of Utilitarianism

827 Words2 Pages

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

Open Document