In: Psychology
Suppose you work in public relations for a company that is developing an attractive, affordable, low-emissions car. The company's engineers have just discovered that the car's fuel tank is placed so that in a very rare kind of crash (1 out of 10,000), the car will instantly explode, killing the people inside. This means that some people who drive the car will die in a horrible accident, but most drivers will be fine. You make sure this information is not made public, and at a press conference you lie and claim that the car is safe. Would a deontologist (someone who subscribes to Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy) say that you acted ethically? Explain why / why not (Be sure to formulate the maxim you act on when you tell the lie and test it. Recall the formula for maxims: "Whenever [circumstances], I'l | [action]"). Determine whether the maxim is consistent with the Categorical Imperative. If the maxim is not consistent with the Categorical Imperative, explain why the maxim fails Kant's test. Next, explain whether an Act Utilitarian would say that you acted ethically (be sure to explain what makes actions right / wrong in general for Act Utilitarianism). What would have to happen to make your lie about the car permissible for the Act Utilitarian?
Duty ethics suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it maximizes benefit to maximum number of people and reduce any harm. This would mean that the one shouldn’t worry about what would happen because of what one does as long as one fulfils one’s duty. First categorical imperative suggests that one should act to the maxim that it becomes a universal law which others could follow. This would mean lying is not a maxim which others could follow and, in this instance, if one lies, one is setting a very bad example for others to follow which is wrong.
Utilitarian ethics suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it maximizes benefit to maximum number of people and reduce any harm. Act utilitarian looks to bring out the best outcomes in a particular situation. This would mean that because it’s an affordable care and environment friendly, one could lie about the damage in the event of an accident because the chances are very narrow for someone with that car to get into an accident. Accidents happen due to human error and the chances of survival from severe accidents are also very thin. It would help maximum number of people with an affordable car and that’s all matters in this specific situation while it would also benefit the company.
Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.