Understanding of Kantianism - Case Study Example

Assessment 2 1. Description of week 4 tutorial on my values I can describe myself as a person who values fairness, honesty and tolerance for other people’s views and ideas. These qualities have enabled me to interact amicably with others and learn from them. I can say that I have adopted the human dimension of learning in my interactions with others because I am always eager to learn good deeds from other people, to have a better understanding of others, and to control my emotions. The human dimension of learning gives priority to intrapersonal learning and interpersonal learning (Barkley & Major 2016, p. 271). According to Barlow (2013, p. 118), intrapersonal learning involves learning about oneself while interpersonal learning involves learning among peers or learning about others. As such, based on the human dimension of learning, I always ask myself what I can learn about myself as an individual functioning within a social world, and what I can learn about interacting with other people that I meet now or in the future, as stated by Barkley and Major (2016, p. 262) . What is important is that I have realised that I can achieve what I want to, and I am always happy when I successfully complete what I am doing. Although I like learning, “sometimes I get timid when I need to try new things” as noted in my week 4 tutorial submission. However, I would like to overcome this weakness by being confident to try new things and learning from both success and failure. Ultimately, I believe that the knowledge and experience that I have gained through education and interactions with others will help me to achieve my career ambitions. My ambition is to help the society through my contributions that will demonstrate the values that I hold – that is, fairness, honesty and tolerance. 2. Answers to questions a. What did VW do? VW cheated regarding its diesel vehicles’ emission levels. In real sense, the vehicles were producing more emissions than what the company had declared or the emission levels that are permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States (Hotten 2015). b. How did VW do it? The company installed a “defeat device” or software in its diesel-powered vehicles that could detect when the vehicles were being tested and adjust the level of engine performance accordingly (Hotten 2015). According to EPA, VW engines had computer software that could detect test conditions of the vehicle, that is operating while on a stationary rig, and reduce the performance and normal power of the vehicle. While in real driving conditions, the software could switch off the test mode, causing the engine to produce its actual power, resulting in a higher emission level than that detected during tests (Hotten 2015). c. What differed from the expected? It would normally be expected that results of emission testing would be the same whether the vehicle is being tested on the road or on a stationary test rig in the laboratory. The emissions would be required to be within the levels stipulated by EPA. However, because of VW’s “defeat device”, the company’s diesel vehicles would produce low emissions in test conditions but produce very high emissions while on the road (as high as 40 times more than the level that is permitted in the United States) (Hotten 2015). d. What are the individual, organisational and social consequences of VW’s practice? At the individual level, the chief executive of VW at the time of the scandal resigned. It was also expected that action would be taken against managers or executives who were involved in the installation of the cheating devices to vehicle engines (Hotten 2015). At the organizational level, the company experienced a reputational damage among customers and the wider public. It also experienced financial losses and possible fines and lawsuits. Social consequences for VW are that the company is likely to be perceived negatively by customers and the public. e. How do you feel after reading the case? After reading the case, I feel that VW deceived its customers and the public in order to increase sales, and therefore, the company should be punished for its actions. I feel that it is not justifiable for VW or any other company to wilfully mislead its customers or the public in order to increase sales of its products. Such actions should be punished severely. f. In which other occasions have you felt like this? One occasion in which I have felt like is when Toyota misled consumers in the United States by concealing the safety problems in the company’s cars that caused them to go faster even as drivers attempted to reduce speed (Cowan 2014). Another occasion is that in which the Coca-Cola Company admitted that it was selling tap water as "pure" bottled water under the Dasani brand name (Lawrence 2004). 3. My understanding of Kantianism Kantianism is also referred to as Kant’s ethical theory of deontology (Hursthouse 2000, p. 146). Deontology means duty or obligation (Lazier 2010, p. 207; Hursthouse 2000, p. 146). Kantianism is a concept that is premised on the reasoning that what confers moral worth to an action is the motive behind the action, not the outcome or consequence of the action. That is, Kant’s ethical theory of deontology is based on the duty or obligation that one has in regard to doing an action and not the consequences of that action (Lazier 2010, p. 207). In other words, according to Kantianism, if it is right to do something, then it is appropriate to do it regardless of the consequences. For instance, if telling the truth is the right thing to do, then it will be appropriate to tell the truth regardless of the action hurting the feelings of someone. Along the same line, it can be stated that if someone is doing something that is wrong, then telling them that they are doing wrong will be appropriate, irrespective of whether the person will feel bad about the truth that they are told. For Kantianism, a desirable end cannot justify bad means. That is to say that doing something bad is not justified even if the end results of the action are good. This is because according to deontological theory, “an action is intrinsically right or wrong in and of itself” (Widdows 2011, p. 53). What this implies is that as noted above, an action is evaluated based on its own good point, and not by looking at whether the action will have negative implications in the end. Therefore, if an action is morally right, then it is morally necessary and needs to be taken no matter what the effects will be and regardless of people’s personal reservations, desires, excuses or wishes (Widdows 2011, p. 53). Thus, based on Kantian thinking, actions that are morally right are those that simply ought to be done no matter what happens. Based on Kant’s words, morally right actions are “categorical” (Widdows 2011, p. 53). Categorical moral “oughts” can be separated from hypothetical “oughts” (Widdows 2011, p. 53). Categorical oughts are things that every person must do whereas hypothetical “oughts are things that people ought to do if they wish to attain certain results (Widdows 2011, p. 53). Thus, hypothetical oughts are conditional; for instance: if I want to succeed in my course, I ought to read the prescribed course materials. 4. Application of Kantianism to the Volkswagen case study Kantianism can be applied to the Volkswagen case study by looking at whether the actions that were taken were right. This is based on the point that deontological ethics is associated with seeking an answer to the question “Is it right?” (Kimber & Siemensma 2009, p. 32). Kantianism is also associated with the dictum that people should do the “right thing because it is the right thing to do” (Murray, Poole & Jones 2006, p. 198). Further, according to Kantianism, a person’s action is acceptable only if it could be judged to be applicable as a universal standard that every person should follow (Drummond, Ensor & Ashford 2014, p. 309). This means that an action is deemed to be right only if it can be deemed to be universally appropriate, such that every other individual can want to do such an action. This leads to the question as to whether what VW did was right and worth emulating or not. What VW did is cheating regarding the levels of emissions produced by its diesel vehicles. Therefore, the question is, can cheating be accepted as a morally right act? This question can be answered by looking at the definition of the word ‘cheating’. According to the Cambridge Dictionaries online, the verb form of the word ‘cheat’ means “to behave in a dishonest way” in order to get something (Cambridge University Press 2016). Similarly, taking the noun form of the word, a ‘cheat’ is “a person who behaves in a dishonest way” or “something dishonest that makes people believe that something is true when it is not” (Cambridge University Press 2016). Going back to what VW did, it can be said that the company behaved in a dishonest way by installing a “defeat device” in its cars in order to portray the cars as low emitters and hence increase their sales, particularly in the United States. VW is also a cheat because it made the public believe that its diesel cars were low emitters, when in reality the cars’ level of emission was much higher. Therefore, by all means, what VW did was not the right thing to do. Based on Kantianism, VW’s action is also not universally applicable. Yet, it is only when an action can be applied universally that it can be regarded acceptable (Widdows 2011, pp. 53-54). In reality, no company would be willing to wilfully mislead its customers or the public since most companies have ethical values that promote doing what is right. 5. What I would have done differently as the CEO of Volkswagen, based on Kantianism and my values If I were the CEO of Volkswagen, I would have acted in a way that upholds my values of fairness, honesty and tolerance. I would also have upheld the Kantian principle of doing what is right. Therefore, I would not have allowed the company to cheat in order to increase vehicle sales. Instead, I would have asked the company, through its various departments, to come up with a way of reducing emissions from diesel engines without tampering with systems. I would also have ensured that VW cultivates trust among its customers and the public by using honest means to market vehicles and handling any concerns from the public or customers with utmost care. I would have ensured that the company addresses any concerns with fairness so that the business of VW is judged to be fair and honest. The importance of fairness and honesty in business cannot be gainsaid. According to Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2016, p. 63), fairness, honesty any integrity are values that are widely used to assess activities that could turn out to be ethical concerns. The same authors also note that ethical concerns can arise from almost any decision that an organisation makes. Hence, understanding the values that are related to ethics can assist in identifying and developing discussions on behaviour that is appropriate. To start with, honesty refers to trustworthiness or truthfulness (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell 2016, p. 63). Also, to be honest means telling the truth to the best of one’s knowledge without concealing anything (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell 2016, p. 63). Therefore, based on my duty as the CEO of VW, I would have insisted that the company should act honestly by not concealing any information about its products. As well, based on Kantianism, I would have the duty to act respectfully and responsibly towards all individuals, as noted by Weiss (2009, p. 108). In this case, my duty would be to act respectfully and responsibly towards customers and the public. To do this, I would disclose all information about VW cars that is in the public interest. I would be guided by the fact that when making a decision, a person needs to think about formulating his or her reason as a principle that can be applied to everyone (Weiss 2009, p. 108). In this case, ensuring that the diesel cars are made in a way that truly reduces emissions is the right thing – and this is what I should have done. Going back to Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2016, p. 63), fairness is the attribute of being impartial, equitable and just. Fairness implies not acting in way that does not involve prejudice or bias to any party that is involved in or related to a transaction. It is evident from the case study that what VW did is not fair since it prejudiced both customers and the public. For customers, the perception that was created that VW’s diesel cars had low emissions was unfair because customers would end up paying a premium for a product that would not deliver what was advertised. For the public, the mere fact that VW was cheating regarding its emission levels was unjust because the cars were silently polluting the environment over the permitted limits. I would have promoted fairness by ensuring that customers get what they pay for (i.e. truly low emission cars). Along the same line, as the CEO, I would have pursued fairness to the public by ensuring that all VW cars meet the emission limits set by public organisations such as EPA, which apply to all vehicle manufacturers. References Barkley, EF & Major, CH 2016, Learning assessment techniques: a handbook for college faculty, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Barlow, SH 2013, Specialty competencies in group psychology, Oxford University Press, New York. Cambridge University Press 2016, Cheat, viewed 6 May 2016, . Cowan, J 2014, ‘Toyota to pay $1.3 billion for deadly defect cover-up’, ABC, 20 March, viewed 5 May 2016, . Drummond, G, Ensor, J & Ashford, R 2014, Strategic marketing: planning and control, 3rd edn, Routledge, New York. Ferrell, OC, Fraedrich, J & Ferrell, L 2016, Business ethics: ethical decision making & cases, 11th edn, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA. Hotten, R 2015, ‘Volkswagen: the scandal explained’, BBC News, 10 December, viewed 5 May 2016, . Hursthouse, R 2000, Ethics, humans and other animals: an introduction with readings, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Kimber, D & Siemensma, F 2009, ‘International business ethics’, in DJ Newlands & Hooper, MJ (eds), The global business handbook: the eight dimensions of international management, Gower Publishing Limited, Surrey. Lawrence, F 2004, ‘Things get worse with Coke’, The Guardian, 20 March, viewed 5 May 2016, . Lazier, J 2010, ‘Kantian ethics’, in RH Corrigan & ME Farrell (eds), Ethics: a university guide, Progressive Frontiers Press, Gloucester, pp. 207-220. Murray, P, Poole, D & Jones, G 2006, Contemporary issues in management and organisational behaviour, Thomson Learning, South Melbourne, Victoria. Weiss, JW 2009, Business ethics: a stakeholder and issues management approach, 5th edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. Widdows, H 2011, Global ethics: an introduction, Routledge, New York. Read More