Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory In The Case Of James Liang

944 Words2 Pages

Moral decisions can be difficult to decipher. It is important to establish the perspective that will be applied to the situation. In the case of Volkswagen engineer James Liang, two major ethical theories can be used to judge the morality of the actions that took place. James Liang was and engineer working on project to make Volkswagen diesel engines more efficient. However, a “defeat device” was used in order to pass U.S. EPA emissions tests even though the engine was not designed to operate with the proper emissions regulations. A “defeat device” is an illegal software used to change the outcome of data during a testing environment. After a lengthy investigation, Liang has pleaded guilty to using said device on about 500,000 different cars …show more content…

Rather than focusing on the outcome or consequences of an action, Kant looks at the intention of the individual making the action, or the will, and how it compares to one’s duty. Duty is defined as what motivates an individual beyond one’s desire to take the action. If an action is taken with a will that does not coincide with the duty of an individual, then the action would be immoral. Kant’s theory also introduces maxims and categorical imperatives. Maxims are subjective principle that dictate the action of an individual. A categorical imperative is acting according to a maxim with the intent that all rational being should follow as well. To not abide by a categorical imperative as a rational being would be irrational and therefore immoral. In Kant’s theory, the will must follow these categorical imperatives as universal moral laws despite the outcomes in order for an action to be morally …show more content…

A utilitarian approach could argue that Liang believed that using this software could lead to the greatest overall happiness because customers would believe they are being more fuel efficient and feel better about themselves and production would not have to be delayed nor costs increase. This argument would agree that the use of the defeat device is ethical if Liang followed the rule that it was to produce the greatest overall happiness. However, when applying Kant’s theory to the use of the defeat device Laing’s a categorical imperative must be established. Being an engineer for many years Liang must abide by the NSPE. In the NSPE it states “Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts”.2 This statement can be used for a categorical imperative for it is a universal rule that all engineers have a professional obligation to adhere to. Liang’s will for his actions are described in an article from Bloomberg Technology stating, “I know VW did not disclose the defeat devise to U.S. regulators in order to sell the cars in the U.S”.3 As Liang being a lead engineer with Volkswagen, it can be said that his intentions were to sell the cars in the U.S. as well. The question can be asked does this will follow the categorical imperative. In this situation it does not. The use of the defeat device blatantly breaks the code found in the NSPE because it distorts the

Open Document