Kantian Ethics Free Essays

After reading the Oil rig case, it is evident that the case presented an all too common example of violating sound ethical business behavior where humans are subjected to ill treatment, unsafe work condition, and total disregard for their welfare. In this paper, I will attempt to apply the Kantian Ethics principles to this case in order to determine what went wrong in this situation. Kantian ethics followers believe that motive is one of the most crucial elements to be analyzed when trying to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong in everyday situations. We will write a custom essay sample on Kantian Ethics or any similar topic only for you Order Now According to Immanuel Kant, the founder of Kantian ethics, a moral action is one that is performed out of a sense of duty and which is based on a sense of knowing what one â€Å"ought† to do under certain circumstances; therefore, a morally acceptable action is one that is never motivated by reward. One of the fundamental beliefs of the Kantian Ethics is the need to protect the employees and consumers by advocating that profit is not an end in itself. The above mentioned belief emphasizes the fact that organizations should not engage in exploiting consumers and employees for the sole reason to make profits. As such, and based on the Kantian Ethics guiding principles, the Stratton Oil Company is committing unethical acts against the African employees. The company engages in profit maximizing by exploiting the African laborers for long hours with poor living conditions, unsafe work environment, and mediocre evacuation plans. The Workers on this oil rigs, both on land and off-shore, are routinely exposed to health and safety hazards in an attempt to cut cost and maximize profits. The management team failed to implement a culture that fosters the employee’s best interests. By putting a value on human dignity, the company has disdainfully treated its employees as a means to an end. The managing team regarded the risks associated with running this rig as acceptable which most definitely constitutes a major problem for Kant and his followers. Furthermore, Kant emphasizes that profits must be utilized to better the livelihood of all stakeholders to include but not limited to the shareholders, employees both African and Expatriates, the consumers they serve, and the environment they operate within. In this case, the company did not invest in the well being of the many African laborers as compared to the few expatriates. The company is not willing to spend additional funds to provide helicopter rides to the local employees for example, and continues to allow for eighteen hour boat trips following long working days at sea. Also, due to poor budgeting decision, the company elected not to provide proper medical attention to the locals and allowed for extreme medical measures such as finger and limb amputation as compared to reconstruction surgery provided to the expats. Obviously, the company recognizes the importance of preserving one’s body organs but chose to implement policies that guarantee a better quality of life for some and the worst for others. Kant’s second Categorical Imperative: (Humanity or End in Itself formulation) implies to â€Å"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. would require safe working conditions, a decent wage for all people, and no discriminating treatment of foreign employees. The Stratton Oil Company has not behaved as law-making members of a kingdom of ends. Instead, they allowed a series of abuses in order to make a greater profit. Another aspect where this case fails the Kantian Ethics model is the fact that employees are also expected to work in a democratic manner where they are continuously contributing to all business decisions. The Kingdom of Ends principle implies that employees not only have a right to whistle blow but in fact it is their duty to do so. Kantian theory instructs people to act in harmony with universally accepted rules. I believe that Kant would want an individual to stand firm in telling the truth, regardless of personal outcome. In our case, the Expats are violating an important Kantian Ethical principle by not reporting the unethical practices enforced by the company and encouraged by the expats themselves. Turning a blind eye to such practices not only goes against the primary goal of the Kantian philosophy but also would violate the basic virtues of honesty and courage. The Expats are in fact looking the other way in fear of loosing their current luxurious status, and even worst fearing the possible retaliation from the company. Throughout his writings, Kant explained that a business organization should be regarded as a manifestation of a moral community which, in turns, emphasizes the need for employers to treat their employees with care and with the upmost respect. Given the horrible living conditions provided to the African laborers as described in the given case, it is evident that the Stratton Oil Company had built the African oil rig site on total disregard to any sense of community. Such observation is based on the clear disparity between the mediocre living conditions provided to the African laborers as compared to the luxurious living quarters provided to the few expatriates. Generally speaking, the life of an oil rig worker is unique in several respects. Workers spend few weeks at a time on the rig per stint and then transported back to land for about the same period off. Since the rigs are typically located hundreds of miles from the shore, it can be an isolating experience that some aren’t emotionally equipped to handle. The management team recognizes the need for a better social life since, undeniably, provided the luxurious setup for the expatriates on one side, and totally disregarded the need for similar social amenities for the African workers. This case also brings to light an important ethical dilemma linking the business to the Environment. Of course, Kant would give the environment legal rights rather than moral rights (Paul Taylor’s point of view) which makes perfect sense when explaining the nature of the relationship between business and the environment. Businesses should always follow environmental law as this is something that can be universalized. In other words, I would think that Kant would urge the company to use the environment in moderation due to the Universalizability principle. In our study case, some conscientious shareholders concerned with the environmental impact of these rigs have complained indicating the seriousness of the environmental violations currently practiced by the company. In conclusion, in this area of business ethics, it is obvious that the company is using the African labor market in an attempt to maximize profits from the use of cheap labor. I would argue that Kant would disagree with such practice: my first reason is that Kant said you cannot use the workers as a means to an end. Furthermore, they should be treated equally to those expatriates’ workers from the western hemisphere. Several conditions must be satisfied in order to use the available foreign labor such as: i. Workers must freely choose to work with no added pressures from the local authorities, a common practice known all over the third world countries. ii. The work should be ‘meaningful’ and provide opportunities for all employees regardless of the country of origin. iii. All workers should be allowed to develop morally and physically. iv. The salary must be fair among all the employees based on the working conditions and qualifications. v. Finally leisure activities of some sort should be equally offered to all employees. In other words, applying the duty and goodwill to this case, will solve the issue of foreign labor exploitation and help establish a morally responsible company with solid sustainable goals. However, it is worth nothing that it is impossible to totally apply this theory to business ethics given the nature of Kantian ethics which makes it unrealistic to create firms not be driven by profit but rather by duty. How to cite Kantian Ethics, Papers Kantian Ethics Free Essays One of the beautiful things about Kantian ethics is that it is based on the individual. The individual can decide if their actions are worth doing to another person by weighing if the person would want the action done to them. The Kantian point of view is completely different from the Utilitarian point of view because the Kantian point of view deals with the individual, whereas the Utilitarian point of view deals with the group and the needs of the group. We will write a custom essay sample on Kantian Ethics or any similar topic only for you Order Now When you hear the words â€Å"basic human rights† or the word â€Å"right,† normally that responds to the individual, and rights in many cases are from the Kantian viewpoint. For instance, when a police officer responds to someone in need, they are responding from a Kantian viewpoint – the rights of an individual. We have extended the Kantian point of view to cover animals as well. When you hear the term â€Å"animal rights†, it’s referring to the individual animal and the right of that animal as a living being. What did you do to receive Kantian rights? The answer is – be born. That is all you had to do. Kantian rights theory has a harder time being acknowledged in some collective group and tribal societies. Kantianism is best used where there have been long periods of peace, a practice of respect, of tolerance and understanding. Kantian rights tend to dissolve in warlike conditions. Kant provides an example of a nonconsequentialist approach to ethics. He believed that moral rules could be known on the basis of reason alone, and said that we do not need to know the likely results of an action to judge it morally. Kant said that nothing was good in itself except for a good will. By will he meant the ability to act from principle; only when we act from a sense of duty does our act have moral worth. We determine our duty by the categorical imperative. An example of good will would be to use the â€Å"Golden Rule,† do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Kant uses this to say that a person’s actions are reflected in their actions toward another person. As a person intends to do good to another person, that makes his effort fit within the categorical imperative. Kant believed that there was one command that was binding on all rational agents—the categorical imperative, that says that we must always act so that the maxim of our action can be consistently willed to be universal law. By maxim, Kant meant the principle or rule that people formulate to determine their conduct. If a maxim could not be universally applied without contradiction then it would not pass the test of the categorical imperative, and hence could not lead to a moral act. By contrast, a hypothetical imperative is one that tells us what to do if we desire a particular outcome. Let’s look at universal acceptability. We could look at the categorical imperative as enjoining us to prescribe moral laws for everyone; such laws must have universal acceptability. There are laws that are the same across all cultures, and this would be an example of universal acceptability. For instance, stealing is wrong across all cultures. Murder is wrong across all cultures. Robbing is wrong across all cultures. Universal acceptance across all cultures is very similar to the Hammurabi codes for society. As early as 1790 B. C. Hammurabi made written codes for his society that were spread throughout the region and adopted by many societies. It is these laws that in many cases offer the framework for universal acceptance across the globe as we know it today. As rational creatures, Kant held that we should always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves, and never merely as a means. This leads to the second formulation of the categorical imperative: One must always act so as to treat rational humanity as ends in themselves, and never as mere means. It is an interesting point that many people can describe themselves as either a giver or a taker. In theory, the takers use the givers for whatever purpose they want. The givers say they keep giving and the takers keep taking. But it is sort of a paradox because there are more givers than takers, and the givers produce more worth than the takers. How does that define humanity as an end? The givers understand that takers have to view them as equals; the takers must accept that givers provide the beauty and acceptance that they need. Humanity is made up of people on both sides of the argument and those in between. By using one person, a taker, in all actuality, forms a dependent relationship on that person, or group of people, to provide for their needs. A giver sustains a taker by continuously giving them what they need. Kant said that nothing was good in itself except for a good will. By will he meant the ability to act from principle; only when we act from a sense of duty does our act have moral worth. We determine our duty by the categorical imperative. An example of good will would be to use the â€Å"Golden Rule,† do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Kant uses this to say that a person’s actions are reflected in their actions toward another person. As a person intends to do good to another person, that makes his effort fit within the categorical imperative. Kant believed that there was one command that was binding on all rational agents—the categorical imperative, that says that we must always act so that the maxim of our action can be consistently willed to be universal law. By maxim, Kant meant the principle or rule that people formulate to determine their conduct. If a maxim could not be universally applied without contradiction then it would not pass the test of the categorical imperative, and hence could not lead to a moral act. By contrast, a hypothetical imperative is one that tells us what to do if we desire a particular outcome. Let’s look at universal acceptability. We could look at the categorical imperative as enjoining us to prescribe moral laws for everyone; such laws must have universal acceptability. There are laws that are the same across all cultures, and this would be an example of universal acceptability. For instance, stealing is wrong across all cultures. Murder is wrong across all cultures. Robbing is wrong across all cultures. Universal acceptance across all cultures is very similar to the Hammurabi codes for society. As early as 1790 B. C.  Hammurabi made written codes for his society that were spread throughout the region and adopted by many societies. It is these laws that in many cases offer the framework for universal acceptance across the globe as we know it today. As rational creatures, Kant held that we should always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves, and never merely as a means. This leads to the second formulation of the categorical imperative: One must always act so as to treat rational humanity as ends in themselves, and never as mere means. It is an interesting point that many people can describe themselves as either a giver or a taker. In theory, the takers use the givers for whatever purpose they want. The givers say they keep giving and the takers keep taking. But it is sort of a paradox because there are more givers than takers, and the givers produce more worth than the takers. How does that define humanity as an end? The givers understand that takers have to view them as equals; the takers must accept that givers provide the beauty and acceptance that they need. Humanity is made up of people on both sides of the argument and those in between. By using one person, a taker, in all actuality, forms a dependent relationship on that person, or group of people, to provide for their needs. A giver sustains a taker by continuously giving them what they need. Kant said that nothing was good in itself except for a good will. By will he meant the ability to act from principle; only when we act from a sense of duty does our act have moral worth. We determine our duty by the categorical imperative. An example of good will would be to use the â€Å"Golden Rule,† do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Kant uses this to say that a person’s actions are reflected in their actions toward another person. As a person intends to do good to another person, that makes his effort fit within the categorical imperative. Kant believed that there was one command that was binding on all rational agents—the categorical imperative, that says that we must always act so that the maxim of our action can be consistently willed to be universal law. By maxim, Kant meant the principle or rule that people formulate to determine their conduct. If a maxim could not be universally applied without contradiction then it would not pass the test of the categorical imperative, and hence could not lead to a moral act. By contrast, a hypothetical imperative is one that tells us what to do if we desire a particular outcome. Let’s look at universal acceptability. We could look at the categorical imperative as enjoining us to prescribe moral laws for everyone; such laws must have universal acceptability. There are laws that are the same across all cultures, and this would be an example of universal acceptability. For instance, stealing is wrong across all cultures. Murder is wrong across all cultures. Robbing is wrong across all cultures. Universal acceptance across all cultures is very similar to the Hammurabi codes for society. As early as 1790 B. C. Hammurabi made written codes for his society that were spread throughout the region and adopted by many societies. It is these laws that in many cases offer the framework for universal acceptance across the globe as we know it today. As rational creatures, Kant held that we should always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves, and never merely as a means. This leads to the second formulation of the categorical imperative: One must always act so as to treat rational humanity as ends in themselves, and never as mere means. It is an interesting point that many people can describe themselves as either a giver or a taker. In theory, the takers use the givers for whatever purpose they want. The givers say they keep giving and the takers keep taking. But it is sort of a paradox because there are more givers than takers, and the givers produce more worth than the takers. How does that define humanity as an end? The givers understand that takers have to view them as equals; the takers must accept that givers provide the beauty and acceptance that they need. Humanity is made up of people on both sides of the argument and those in between. By using one person, a taker, in all actuality, forms a dependent relationship on that person, or group of people, to provide for their needs. A giver sustains a taker by continuously giving them what they need. Kant’s moral view has implications for organizations: It gives us firm rules to follow, such as never to lie. It forbids treating humans as means to an end. Kant stresses the importance of motivation and acting on principle If you have ever heard the term â€Å"whistle blower,† which we will discuss later in the chapter, we are talking about a person who makes a Kantian objection in the midst of a Utilitarian organization. Normally people who object to organization’s conduct do so based on Kant’s philosophy of telling the truth and hoping that the organization abandons its Utilitarian principles by pushing them closer to Kantian ethics. Now let’s discuss some critical inquiries of Kant’s Ethics What has moral worth? Kant holds that if a person does the right thing out of habit or sympathy, his act does not have moral worth. But this seems too severe. Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of what is right? It might be that there are exceptions to the general rules, such as stealing food if one is starving. What does it mean to treat people as means? It is not always clear when one is treating a person as a means or not. It is true that there are people who advertise themselves as a means to an end, and in our modern society, we have given groups of people the power to be a means. For instance, it used to be that we didn’t need plumbers, that we made our own clothes, and provided our own food. But since the years of Kant’s philosophy, we have changed and shifted to a consumer society where we buy all of the things that used to be made, thereby forcing people to depend on other people for the means of their survival. Kant’s moral view has implications for organizations: It gives us firm rules to follow, such as never to lie. It forbids treating humans as means to an end. Kant stresses the importance of motivation and acting on principle If you have ever heard the term â€Å"whistle blower,† which we will discuss later in the chapter, we are talking about a person who makes a Kantian objection in the midst of a Utilitarian organization. Normally people who object to organization’s conduct do so based on Kant’s philosophy of telling the truth and hoping that the organization abandons its Utilitarian principles by pushing them closer to Kantian ethics. Now let’s discuss some critical inquiries of Kant’s Ethics What has moral worth? Kant holds that if a person does the right thing out of habit or sympathy, his act does not have moral worth. But this seems too severe. Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of what is right? It might be that there are exceptions to the general rules, such as stealing food if one is starving. What does it mean to treat people as means? It is not always clear when one is treating a person as a means or not. It is true that there are people who advertise themselves as a means to an end, and in our modern society, we have given groups of people the power to be a means. For instance, it used to be that we didn’t need plumbers, that we made our own clothes, and provided our own food. But since the years of Kant’s philosophy, we have changed and shifted to a consumer society where we buy all of the things that used to be made, thereby forcing people to depend on other people for the means of their survival. Let’s look at other nonconsequentialist perspectives, such as prima facie obligations, assisting others, and moral rights. W. D. Ross held that we have certain specific moral obligations to others as well as those that are more general. These obligations might conflict, and so our obligations are at least mostly prima facie ones—obligations that can be overridden by more important considerations. Some worry that utilitarianism makes people slaves to the general happiness. By contrast, many philosophers draw a distinction between those acts that people are required to do and those that are supererogatory—acts that it would be good to do but not immoral to omit. Supererogatory acts are those that go beyond the call of duty. The act of assisting others would fall into this category. Either code, statute, or federal laws are all an example of the basic, minimum standard. But what happens if you go beyond the minimum standard? In that case, we would be going toward supererogatory actions. What about our own basic rights? A right is an entitlement to have others act in a certain way. Rights derived from a legal system are legal rights; from a moral system, moral rights. Moral rights that are not the result of roles, relationships, or circumstances are human rights. These have several important characteristics: they are universal, they are held equally by all humans, they are not transferable, and nor can they be relinquished. They are also natural, in that they do not depend on human institutions. Negative rights are rights to be free from external interference; positive rights are rights to have others provide us with certain goods, services, or opportunities. Let’s look at other nonconsequentialist perspectives, such as prima facie obligations, assisting others, and moral rights. W. D. Ross held that we have certain specific moral obligations to others as well as those that are more general. These obligations might conflict, and so our obligations are at least mostly prima facie ones—obligations that can be overridden by more important considerations. Some worry that utilitarianism makes people slaves to the general happiness. By contrast, many philosophers draw a distinction between those acts that people are required to do and those that are supererogatory—acts that it would be good to do but not immoral to omit. Supererogatory acts are those that go beyond the call of duty. The act of assisting others would fall into this category. Either code, statute, or federal laws are all an example of the basic, minimum standard. But what happens if you go beyond the minimum standard? In that case, we would be going toward supererogatory actions. What about our own basic rights? A right is an entitlement to have others act in a certain way. Rights derived from a legal system are legal rights; from a moral system, moral rights. Moral rights that are not the result of roles, relationships, or circumstances are human rights. These have several important characteristics: they are universal, they are held equally by all humans, they are not transferable, and nor can they be relinquished. They are also natural, in that they do not depend on human institutions. Negative rights are rights to be free from external interference; positive rights are rights to have others provide us with certain goods, services, or opportunities. How to cite Kantian Ethics, Essay examples