Kantian Deontology Theory
Deontology is an ethical theory by Immanuel Kant that distinguishes the right from wrong through the use of rules. Thus, deontology simply entails adhering to rules as a way of distinguishing between right and wrong. Kant held that a good thing entails acting in accordance with moral law and as an obligation to that law as opposed to natural inclinations. This theory therefore advocates for the treatment of humans from both a personal perspective and the perspective of everyone else at the same time. Therefore, deontology simply disregards costs and benefits of a situation. As such, it avoids uncertainty and subjectivity since individuals only have to adhere to a set of rules to govern their actions.
The Kantian Deontology has been criticized for its rigidity and lack of consideration to consequences and benefits of actions. For instance, in a situation where a software Engineer identifies an ongoing launch of a missile, he can hack and stop it from launching. However, the deontology theory of ethics views the action of hacking as unethical and as a form of cheating. In this case, the adhering to the theory would lead to many deaths.
Case 1: Inside the hellish workday of an Amazon warehouse employee background
This is a case involving Emily Guendelsberger, a 35 year old woman who opted to work at Amazon after losing her job as a senior staff writer at Philadelphia City Paper. The tasks at Amazon entailed working for 12-hour shifts and walking a total of between 15 to 20 miles through a 25-acre warehouse. The supervisors at Amazon tried to warn Emily about how the job would be physically demanding following the extreme conditions. Emily tells of an Amazon training video that narrates how one of Amazon’s employees had lost 20 pounds because of the walking at the warehouse while conducting job duties. However, according to her new book “On the Clock: What Low-Wage Work Did to Me and How It Drives America Insane” (Little Brown), the pain she experienced was different from what she had expected. In her book, she also reveals that she had worked in a customer service call centre in Hickory and at McDonald’s Franchise in downtown San Francisco from 2015 to 2017.
Emily notes that her aim for experiencing the three jobs was not to report the occurrences, but to experience the modern low-wage work. Given the fact she had lost her job as a senior staff writer, she was motivated by the need to generate income and also to fulfill her curiosity. She noted that she had only worked a few service jobs during her teenage years and early 20’s. According to Emily, since her early 20s, she had only worked in jobs that entailed sitting at a desk. The primary issue in this case was how low-wage workers are subjected to extreme working conditions.
Case Analysis using Kantian Deontology theory
In the above case, Emily narrates about the extreme conditions not only subjected to her, but to other workers at low-wage employment. In this case, the Kantian Deontology theory of ethics can be applied to determine whether Emily’s claims are valid. Firstly, Kantian’s Deontology theory is based on the ideology that a person’s actions should be based on the rules rather than guided by natural inclination. In this case, one should disregard the consequences and benefits of something when making a decision and therefore consider the set of rules involved in the issue. As such, Emily’s actions after losing her job as a senior staff writer should have been based on rules rather than personal interests.
In this case, Emily ignored the supervisors who warned her about the demanding nature of the job at Amazon. However, Emily ignored this claims due to the motive of generating income and the curiosity of physical fitness. Therefore, Emily should have considered the directives of the supervisor who seemed to act according to the rules of the company. In this case, Amazon is not responsible for her suffering since they present workers with the set of rules stating that they would work for 12-hour shifts.
Case 2 Twitter has a woman problem: of all its executives and directors, only one is female
Background
The case is concerned with gender discrimination by Twitter in its executive sand directors. This follows after Twitter filed an Investors Public Offering (IPO). Twitter files the IPO at a time when it is faced with numerous speculations regarding its disregard for the female gender in its top workforce. Notably, the case notes that company’s leadership team including executive officers, board of directors and key stakeholders only includes one female. On the other hand, the company consists of 11 men in it leadership team. Besides Twitter, of 500 fortune companies, only 27% have a woman in their executive teams. The case points out on the widening gap between the wealthy Americans and the rest of the population. However, the primary concern on Twitter’s case is the issue of gender diversity.
The case cites on research that shows that having diverse teams in the workforce helps in maximizing shareholder returns. This finding is significant for Twitter amid its shift from privately held concern to maximizing shareholder returns. According to the case, evidence shows that including more women in the board of directors enables the company to perform well in terms of return on invested capital, return on equity and return on sales. Also, in a situation where customer growth appears to be slowing down, it is essential to review the workforce and include more women to foster growth. While tech companies continue to have the gender based discrimination in their recruitment for top executives, Twitter needs to consider the ratio of women-to-men. This approach according to the case will promote innovation and generate significant shareholder returns.
Kantian Deontology theory
In this case, gender discrimination at the workplace is not morally right. Notably, the deontology theory can be used to determine the rightness or the wrongness of Twitter’s actions. In this case, a moral norm entails doing what is required of us by God, natural law, reasoning, rationality or one which is widely accepted by people. Firstly, the idea of including only one woman and eleven men in the company’s top leadership is unacceptable. In particular, the Kantian deontology theory provides that the application of rules should be guided by standards of what is right and wrong as opposed to being good or bad. As such, this theory advocates for the prohibition of an act if it is deemed wrong.
In Twitter’s case, the lack of fairness in the recruitment of top leadership executives leading to the inclusion of only one woman makes the company’s actions wrong. Therefore, it is also wrong to employ more women in the top executive positions for the purpose of increasing shareholders returns. By doing so, Twitter will be guided by the motive of increasing its returns, rather than doing what is morally right and in accordance with the Kantian Deontology theory.
Case 3: Social Network Nextdoor Moves To Block Racial Profiling Online by Aarti Shahani
Background
The case involves the unusual act of Nextdoor, a social network like Facebook and Twitter of blocking its users from posting content that appears to promote racial profiling. According to the CEO of Nextdoor, Nirav Tolia, race and racial profiling do not come naturally, but rather lies in the eyes of the beholder. Nextdoor is an online social network that has gained popularity in neighborhoods. The lack of a universally accepted definition has posed a challenge for Nextdoor in implementing its policy. Nextdoor addressed the issue by assigning a broad definition to as something that allows for the stereotyping of an entire race. In this case, Nextdoor gave an example of a post that suggested that “a dark-skinned man is breaking into a car”. While the alleged man may have committed the crime, the definition of the perpetrator does not include vital details like the type of shoes, height and hairstyle
. This approach was decided following the persistent criticism from individuals who perceived Nextdoor as permitting racism and fear. A pilot project of the blocking approach proved successful in reducing racial profiling on the platform. The company altered rules for posting, thus requiring people to include additional details like type of trousers or shoes when using the race of a person. According to Nextdoor, the approach has led to a fifty percent decrease in cases of racial profiling on posts. This approach has however raised a lot of concern since it involves restricting users from expressing their freedom of expression. On the other hand, it helps resolve the initial concerns raised by critics about the company’s contribution to racial profiling.
Kantian Deontology Theory
The issue of concern in the case of Nextdoor is whether the approach of blocking posts deemed to contain racial profiling is right. Therefore, the Kantian Deontology theory can be applied to determine the whether Nextdoor was right or wrong. Firstly, race and racial profiling tend to lack a universally accepted definition. Notably, the users of Nextdoor may post content they deem right without any intentions of promoting racial profiling. Put simply, it is difficult to ascertain whether the information was posted for the wrong intentions.
The Kantian Deontiology theory provides that an act is good when it is widely or universally accepted. In this case, there seems to be a problem with the definition of racist. Therefore, it is difficult to uphold to this rule when posting information on Nextdoor. While Nextdoor reached a solution and designed a broad definition of racial profiling, it was not universally accepted. In this case, Nextdoor’s act of blocking users from posting content attributed to racial profiling is deemed as a way of violating their freedom of expression, therefore making it wrong.
Case 4: One Nation Under Wal-Mart By Terrence McNally / AlterNet September 19, 2005
Background
The case “One Nation Wal-Mart” presents how Wall-mart has dominated the retail industry. According to the case, the company has attained lower prices by exerting pressure on the suppliers to reduce their prices. Also, statistics show that the company imports 10% of its supplies from China. The case explains the issue concerning Wal-mart.
The primary concern is the way the company acquires goods at a cheaper price and transfers the savings to its consumers. By doing so, the company has led to the closure of many local businesses. In the case, it is revealed how Wal-Mart is opposed to unions and their low-wage to workers that averages $8.23 per hour. The fact that the company is well established makes it difficult to take the necessary actions.
Kantian Deontology Theory
In the case “One Nation Under Wal-Mart”, the primary concern is Wal-Mart’s act of reducing the prices at the cost of its workers. As such, the Kantian Deontology can be helpful in determining whether Wal-Mart is right or wrong in its strategies. Firstly, Wal-Mart’s strive to reduce the costs and lower the price of its products is driven by the desire to gain a competitive advantage in the economy. Additionally, it transfers the savings to its customers while paying low wages to its workers.
The Deontology theory provides that actions should be based on obligation rather than human inclination, emotions and consequences. In this case, Wal-Mart’s actions are not based on its obligations to the society but rather the desire to generate more profits by increasing sales. Therefore, from the perspective of Kantian Deontology theory of ethics, Wal-Mart’s actions are wrong.
Case 5 Oracle versus PeopleSoft Barbarians in the Valley
Background
The case “Oracle versus PeopleSoft Barbarians in the Valley” involves a bi8d by Oracle to merge with PeopleSoft. At first, PeopleSoft had placed a bid to acquire Oracle. However, Oracle announced its bid for PeopleSoft. PeopleSoft rejected Mr. Ellison’s $16 offer because it was deemed too low. As a result, Oracle claimed that PeopleSoft was inconsiderate of the interests of its stakeholders. PeopleSoft avoided the involvement of stakeholders on the matter by amending its bid for J.D Edwards. In its defense, PeopleSoft claimed that its actions were designed to accelerate the merger and reduce the harm from Oracle’s bid. Despite Mr. Ellison’s act of raising his bid to $19.50, PeopleSoft rejected Oracle’s offer. While Oracle said it would continue to support PeopleSoft software, it would not develop future versions.
Kantian Deontology Theory
From the above case, it is clear that the primary issue is the actions of PeopleSoft to reject Oracle’s offer. The reason for rejecting Oracle’s offer according to the case was the potential antitrust by authorities. However, the company proceeded to merge with the fourth largest firm. In this case, the merger between Oracle and PeopleSoft would be between the second and third largest companies. In this case, the deontology theory can be used to assess whether PeopleSoft did the right thing in rejecting Oracle’s offer.
The Kantian Deontology theory requires actions to be based on what is morally right and acceptable rather than considering the benefits and outcomes. From the case, it is clear that PeopleSoft had initialized the bid for Oracle. However, Oracle in turn made a bid for PeopleSoft. PeopleSoft rejected the offer on the grounds that the merge would cause distrust by the authorities. Despite the fact that the claims may have been correct, PeopleSoft proceeded to merge with J.D Edwards. Therefore, PeopleSoft’s actions were discriminative and motivated by potential gains. In this case, the actions of PeopleSoft were wrong.
General Assessment
The Kantian Deontology theory applies in the analyzed cases to determine whether the actions mentioned are right or wrong. According to the theory, actions motivated by human inclination, emotions and consequences are morally wrong as well as unethical. For instance, in the case “Oracle versus PeopleSoft Barbarians in the Valley”, there is evident discrimination practiced by PeopleSoft. Similarly, the gender based discrimination in Twitter is deemed wrong from the perspective of the Kantian deontology theory of ethics.
The above cases are analyzed on the basis that an action is good only if it occurs in adherence to universally accepted rules or conform with what God wants us to do. In summary, the general analysis reveals a common pattern of how parties act in favor of self-interests rather than doing what is right despite the consequences and outcomes.