McDonald's Automation (2017-Present)

McDonald's Automation (2017-Present)

The Controversy   

In 2017 McDonald’s announced that they will add 1000 self-service kiosk each quarter until 2020 to their restaurants in the United States, which means most of the McDonalds in the United States will have self-service kiosks by 2020. This is controversial because it brings the fear of automation, automation is when companies replace their employees with technology like computers. If companies replace their employees with technology, a lot of people will be out of work, which means people will not be able to make money and it will have a negative impact on the economy (Kowitt).Before announcing their plan to automate their stores at the end of 2016, McDonalds was going through a tough time, they weren’t making as much revenue or sales in the united states as they were before. McDonalds often had long lines especially around lunch time, this would cause chaos in the store which can have a negative effect on the customers’ experiences.  Also, the long lines can discourage potential customers in the store because they don’t want to wait in the long line.  Their plan to make better profit and customer experiences is to modernize their store by kiosks and creating ways for customers to order food through the McDonald’s app. McDonald’s employs 1.9 million people in the world and 375,000 work at the restaurant.

Stakeholders

The stakeholders on this case are the cashiers since the kiosk might replace their job, the company, changes can affect the profits of McDonald's so the Investors are involve, if McDonald's decide to automate their store and replace their employees the economy is involve.

Individualism

Individualism is a theory, where its main point is a company should be focusing on maximizing as much profit within the law. The interest is of individualism is not finding the best ways to operate through society. The values of Individualism are the business, the profits and the business choices (Salazar). Under Individualism it would ethical for McDonald’s to not only replace their cashier’s but also try to find a way to automate their whole store. Profits will increase over because they would not have to pay as much labor expenses, such labor hours especially since minimum wages is increasing, training and mistakes employees might make. Machine can be more reliable than humans they won’t quit unexpectedly, damage the company name by doing something inappropriate to the food or talking bad about the company on social media., make mistakes, call out sick, nor give rude service to customers. If they automate, they would not have to worry about finding and putting money to ways to attract new employees and to keep old ones. Also, automation is not against the law, so if McDonald’s automate their stores it would be ethical for individualism despite the negative impact it will have on society.  

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is about maximizing the overall happiness, to do what is best for everyone’s happiness. A utilitarian makes decisions based on the overall consequences of an action. The reasoning behind utilitarianism is that there is no difference between anyone’s happiness, and that everybody’s happiness holds the same amount of value. Utilitarianism does not just focus on the happiness of human beings, it focusses on the happiness of anything, living which mean it also focus on the happiness of animals and the planet. The theory of utilitarianism explains that it is nearly impossible that an action will bring everyone happiness. For an example an action that cause someone to be happy, can be the same action that caused someone to be sad. Therefore, the decisions that bring the most overall happiness (Salazar). Based on this theory the ethical thing for McDonald’s to do is to apply kiosk fulfill consumers demands, not to replace the employees. If the kiosk replaces employees’ jobs, McDonald’s should make sure cashiers can have a job at another department than the cashier department and make sure everyone hours and job will not be affected negatively because of the department change. This the ethical decision under utilitarianism because there will still be kiosks which means that lines would be faster, and it will modernize McDonald’s fulfilling consumers’ demands. A. The plan that allow employees to keep their job is the ethical plan because the benefits brings happiness to a more amount of people. People will benefit from McDonald’s employing people than having robot because hundreds of thousands of people will not be jobless, families will have money, more money will be spent at different places which will better the economy.

Kantianism

Kantianism is theory created by a philosopher name Immanuel Kant, it emphasizes rationality, focusing on free will allowing for people to make decisions on their own, Kantianism provides information and does not act inconsistently. There main values are respect and truth. It is about treating people as being and not mere means. Which means giving people respect and not seeing them as a profit or a way to accomplish goals by lying and deceiving like manipulating or cheating. In Kantianism it is unethical for someone to benefit by harming others (Salazar). Based on Kantianism it will ok for McDonald’s to have kiosks but not fully automating their store. Even though automating the store is not lying or manipulating people it is harming people since the employees will be out of jobs, they would not have any income, also it will harm the economy. It is unethical under Kantianism because Kantianism does not approve of harming people to be successful. Kantianism is all about good will, having morals when it comes to decision making. Also replacing the employees with robots shows that McDonald’s has no respect for their employees because to replacing and getting rid of them like that shows that McDonald’s does not care about making a decision that will negatively affect their employees, also they would be treating their employees as a mere means and not beings. McDonald’s said that the reasoning for the kiosks is to fulfill consumers’ demand and not to replace their employees, so if they automate their stores further than that mainly to gain profit because they see how the kiosk are doing, it would mean that McDonald’s lie to their employees and customers and Kantianism is about telling the truth.

Virtue theory

Virtues are characteristics that allow everything to function properly. Virtue theory is a theory that focuses on characteristics that’s allows the wellness of others and the prosperity of others within a society. The four main characteristics of virtue theory are courage, honesty, temperance and justice. Virtue theory avoids any characteristics that leads to bad and viscous behavior (Salazar). Under Virtue theory McDonald’s will be ethical if they let the kiosk and the cashiers coexist together because it allows workers prosper and it focuses on their wellness since they will still have a job. keeping them there is justice because it has a positive affect on society, it will allow the economy to stay the same or maybe increase. If McDonald’s full automate their stores and get rid of their employees, this will ethically wrong under virtue theory because subtracting the amount of jobs and job opportunities that society will have by significant amount is viscous behavior. The characteristics of this behavior are negative, one characteristics is greed because only people who is focus on gaining more money or their accomplishments will make a decision that will benefit them but negatively affect everyone around them.

References

Baertlein, L (03/1/17) “McDonald's U.S. turnaround shifts to technology, speedier service” from

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-meeting/mcdonalds-u-s-turnaround-shifts-to-technology-speedier-service-idUSKBN16856Q

Cain, A (Aug. 6, 2018)  “McDonald's drive-thrus are 'not suitable for horses' — and 11 other insider facts about McDonald's that employees know and most customers don't”

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-jobs-insider-facts-2018-4

Forbes (08/09/18) “Why Is McDonald's Moving Toward Kiosks?” from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/08/09/why-is-mcdonalds-moving-toward-kiosks/#3fe6045a6681

Kowitt, B (November 18, 2016) “Why Eating at McDonald's Is about to Undergo A Massive Makeover” from

http://fortune.com/2016/11/18/mcdonalds-kiosks-table-service/

Patton, L (03/13/18)  “McDonald's workers quitting in droves over 'complicated' technology, new menu items” from

https://business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/mcdonalds-workers-quitting-in-droves-over-complicated-technology-new-menu-items

Peterson, H (Aug. 6, 2015) “McDonald's shoots down fears it is planning to replace cashiers with kiosks” from

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-self-serve-kiosks-at-mcdonalds-mean-for-cashiers-2015-8

Salazar, H “The case manual”

Cornell’s Brian Wansink and Data Manipulation of Food Studies (2017)


Controversy

Brian Wansink has been accused by the university for providing false information regarding his food studies. Brian Wansinks rise to fame came when he began to develop studies that connect people's eating habits with cues from their environment. According to the Washington Post, “For years, Wansink enjoyed a level of prominence that many academics would strive for, his work spawning countless news stories. He published a story showing that people who ate from “bottomless” bowls of soup continue to eat as their bowls are refilled, as a parable about the potential health effects of larger portion size” (Rosenberg & Wong). It has been reported that Brian Wansinks research methods weren’t practical, and didn’t follow the basic rules scientists all over use. When testing a hypothesis, Scientists typically conduct a single hypothesis, gather data, then test the results. In Wansinks case, he was found to be testing the same data numerous times, all while testing different hypothesis. Tim Van Der Zee, a doctoral student in the educational psychology field, tested with a few colleagues the validity of Brian Wansink research papers. According to Brett Dahlberg “The team found 150 problems with the data collection and statistical analysis in the first four of Wansink papers that they scrutinized. The teams findings were validated earlier this month when Cornell reported the conclusions of it’s yearlong internal probe to JAMA, resulting in the journal's retractions of Wansink's work.” (Dahlberg). It is said that Brian Wansink is a P-hacker. According to the article, P-Hacking is when researchers play with data to arrive at results that look like they’re scientifically significant. For instance, they can cherry pick data points, re-analyze the data in multiple ways or stop an experiment early.”

  

Individualism

If you look at this case from an individualistic perspective, Brian Wansink succeeded in his work efforts, well, at least until he got caught. His work also wasn’t within the law, he was just cutting corners in order to make a profit.  The purpose of Brian Wansink’s work was to research the way people create food based decisions. His work was partially responsible for the introduction of mini-size packaging, which limits the servings an individual is able to consume in that one sitting. He also won an IG nobel prize for his efforts in his “endless bowl” study. In this study, he found that participants who ate from the “bottomless bowls” consumed more soup than those whose bowls were filled manually. It was found that when we are conscious of how much we are eating, we tend to cut back and not eat as much, but when the amount you’ve consumed is unknown, you’re physically able to stomach more. Brian Wansink’s work falls in line with the beliefs of individualistic leaders, and wouldn’t be found to be ethically wrong. He was trying to better society with his findings, while at the same time, easing the burden on his behalf.

Utilitarianism 

From a Utilitarian perspective, Brian Wansink and the work that he completed at Cornell University wouldn’t be deemed ethical. In order to conduct research, Brian Wansink tested the same hypothesis and data repeatedly, in order to avoid any extra work that may have been needed to complete an accurate study. Utilitarians value maximizing the happiness of others. In order to maximize the happiness of his followers, Brian Wansink could have handled the way he did research differently. For example, instead of testing the same data over and over again, collect some new data and compare the results. Another way that he could’ve went about his research was to ask for help from some colleagues, in order to relieve the burden on his shoulders, and ensure to the people that his work is being completed as accurate as possible, and in the best interest of the stakeholders.

Kantianism

In the intro, It was stated that Kantians believe they have a duty to perform to the customer, and don’t factor in their own personal ambitions. In this case, Brian Wansink disregards his followers, and completes his research in an inefficient manner, which goes against the rules of Kant. If he wanted to follow the rules of Kant, he would have completed work that would have benefited his stakeholders. Some of his stakeholders may have been following his research and have been basing their diet based off of the studies Wansink found. Wansink was found guilty with treating his stakeholders as mere means, rather than as ends.  With all of this incorrect information, Wansink might be at risk of putting these stakeholders in danger, due to an unhealthy diet. Wansink was fulfilling his own personal ambitions, and was completing the work as quickly as possible using incorrect scientific practices. 

 Virtue Theory

Virtue Theory is when the character of the company or business is tested, and in this case, Brian Wansink’s research would be found to be unethical. A Virtue Theorist would put the best interests of the stakeholders first, and follow some of the same beliefs that Kant does. “Always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get your way. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties” (Salazar ‘17). In this specific case, Brian Wansink was found guilty by researchers who challenged his work, and they exploited all of the impractical methods that were used in order to ease the burden on his behalf. 

Works Cited:

Dahlberg, Brett. “Cornell Food Researcher's Downfall Raises Larger Questions For Science.” NPR, NPR, 26 Sept. 2018, www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/09/26/651849441/cornell-food-researchers-downfall-raises-larger-questions-for-science.

Lee, Stephanie M. “Sliced And Diced: The Inside Story Of How An Ivy League Food Scientist Turned Shoddy Data Into Viral Studies.” BuzzFeed News, BuzzFeed News, 29 Sept. 2018,

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/brian-wansink-cornell-p-hacking.

Rosenberg, Eli, and Herman Wong. “This Ivy League Food Scientist Was a Media Darling. He Just Submitted His Resignation, the School Says.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Sept. 2018,

“Brian Wansink.” David Just | Cornell Institute for Food Systems, cifs.cornell.edu/people/brian-wansink/.

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. N.d.

Leslie Moonves: CEO's and Sex Scandals (2018)

CONTROVERSY
CBS was founded by Arthur Judson in 1927. Unable to find work, Judson created his own network which combined with another to finally be signed on as the Columbia Broadcasting System in 1929, after being bought out by William S. Paley. Programming was free to the large audiences and by 1970 they were airing infamous shows such as M*A*S*H, 60 Minutes and All in the Family. The company developed itself to gain the interests of all generations of the country.

 

CBS Company Logo

The company has developed immensely as a result of their hard work and dedication that led them to a growth in various forms of entertainment. They offer viewers a choice of CBS media in Publishing, Local Media, Cable TV, TV Network, and internet based businesses. CBS is one of the largest mass media companies in America. They have continued their growth in the new generation, as well as in older generations, with their consistent development of TV shows aiming to all audiences. Until recently, there were not a lot of complaints of the values and intentions of the company, and then came Leslie Moonves.  

Leslie Moonves, Former CEO of CBS 

Over the past few decades rumors of sexual misconduct were presented to the staff at CBS, but many were without reliable support to back them up. A New Yorker story, written by Ronan Farrow, attacks Moonves with the claims that he “forced oral sex, exposed himself, committed violent acts." Many people knew of the allegations against Moonves, but they were deemed inadmissible due to the fact that they had fallen out of the statute of limitations. Moonves is finally under review by the company as they decide whether he will receive a settlement for his step down. As of now, he is looking to receive at least 100 million dollars, or nothing at all. This decision, made by the company, could change the way people view CBS. This is not in consideration of the many women affected by Moonves’ decision, or in the company’s best interest. Moonves acknowledged his past actions, and now more women have come forward to bring his true character into light. If he had done it in the past, it is possible he is still doing it today. The position Moonves held gave him an advantage over aspiring women in the work force. He also did not see a reason to hide from the publicity. 

INDIVIDUALISM

Individualists would view CBS as unethical. An individualist’s perspective states that business should maximize profits for a company, but do so within the law. The publicity of the Leslie Moonves scandal created a poor image of the company, and the way the company handled the allegations created potential long term damage of viewers. The actions of the company to not fire Moonves, but rather let him resign from his position, created criticism from Americans. This is considered ethically

News Clip of the Resignation of Moonves

wrong from an individualist perspective because in doing this the company lost profit. Viewers are boycotting CBS for their negligence to the stakeholder, and they will continue to lose money as viewer rates decrease. Moonves went against the code of conduct of the business when he used his position to negotiate sexual favors from women. He abused his power and caused the company to lose profits as a result of his actions. The main values of an individualist’s perspective is to maximize the profits for the owners. In the case of Moonves, individualist would say it is ethically wrong because it not only goes against the company’s code of conduct, but it also caused a loss for the owners of the company. 

UTILITARIANISM

A Utilitarian perspective would also evaluate the Moonves case as ethically wrong. A utilitarian belief states that business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all

CBS Newscasters Discussing the Moonves Settlement

scandals. The consequences of the Moonves case are causing the Stakeholders pain, they are not happy. CBS as a company is not following the utilitarian code due to the fact that they are considering giving Moonves a settlement. This decision, if it is agreed to, will make the stakeholders feel as if they lost, and Moonves will get paid out by the company. When coming to a decision on giving Moonves a settlement, the company should follow the utilitarian perspective. They will need to consider the risks to the stakeholders; They will be humiliated if the company decides to grant Moonves a settlement, on top of the pain they are already feeling as a result of the actions of Moonves. 

KANTIANISM
A Kantian theorist would be concerned with the process CBS took in handling the case of Moonves. They would look into the way the company took action in their own hands, and made a statement declaring their full corporation with the investigation. It is considering the actions of the company, and if they are using rational decision making in the process. The company did not cause the victims harm, it was an individual in the company that did this. When the case became public, CBS tried to do everything in their power to inform viewers that they would corporate, and they also did not lie to protect their employee. They were acting with honesty and acknowledgment of the allegations. This case also passes the Categorical Imperative test of the Formulation of Humanity. This test states that it is wrong to use someone to get what you want; CBS did not use anyone as a mere means, and therefore, it is morally acceptable. CBS was acting ethical under Kantianism because they spoke out and informed their viewers of the any information, and their stance on the case. 

VIRTUE THEORY
There are four main virtues that are followed under virtue theory: Honesty, temperance, courage and justice. The company was being honest with the corporation when discussing the case through the media. They showed temperance with their control to handle the allegations with no blame to the victims. They showed courage as they continued to air their program, and not let the loss of viewers scare them. Finally, the company is showing justice as they are not putting the blame on one individual or another. They are keeping everything fair until it is all settled. 

CBS did not violate any virtues necessary to judge one’s character. They aimed to comfort the public with their response of the issue and their cooperation with the scandal. They did not lie to the public, and they acted in good character when they gave their response with honesty. They are trying to regain the trust of their viewers and they continue to show that they are aiming to act ethical under virtue theory. 

These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Emily Sajdak, "Leslie Moonves: CEO's and Sex Scandals" 

WORKS CITED

About CBS Corporation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cbscorporation.com/about-cbs/

Farrow, R. (2018, September 10). Leslie Moonves Steps Down from CBS, After Six Women Raise New Assault and Harassment Claims. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/as-leslie-moonves-negotiates-his-exit-from-cbs-women-raise-new-assault-and-harassment-claims

Folkenflik, D. (2018, July 28). Report Details Sexual Harassment Allegations Against CBS CEO Les Moonves. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/07/28/633376943/report-details-sexual-harassment-allegations-against-cbs-ceo-les-moonves

Hagey, K., & Flint, J. (2018, September 11). CBS's Handling of Les Moonves Accusations Hampered by Battle for Control. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/cbss-handling-of-les-moonves-accusations-hampered-by-battle-for-control-1536624692

Introduction – CBS Corporation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cbscorporation.com/diversity/about-us/introduction/

Keveney, B. (2018, September 10). CBS CEO Les Moonves becomes most powerful media exec to resign in wake of #MeToo. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/09/09/cbs-ceo-leslie-moonves-hit-new-sexual-misconduct-allegations/1249724002/

McDermott, M. (2018, October 02). Illeana Douglas: Les Moonves called my sexual assault 'a lot of fun'. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/10/02/illeana-douglas-les-moonves-called-my-assault-lot-fun/1498309002/

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk Sued by SEC for Securities Fraud (2018)

Controversy:

On August 7^th2018 at 12:48 P.M. Elon Musk, founder and chairman of the company Tesla tweeted, “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding Secured.” from his personal twitter account. The price of $420 was substantially above the current set price of TSLA which was listed at just above $340. As a result of this tweet, the price of TSLA shot up to about $380, an almost 12% increase in the matter of a few hours. On August 24th the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) filed a subpoena against Tesla, accusing Musk of committing securities fraud.

Stakeholders:

Tweet from Musk's Twitter account

The first and most important stakeholders are the shareholders. The shareholders were negatively affected because Tesla shareholders ultimately lost money in the long-term. Short-term investors (day traders in particular) had an opportunity to make money, however those are not the shareholders that a business should be trying to please. They don't help the company long term. Employees were negatively affected. Many employees feared for their jobs and ultimately decided to quit based on the actions of Musk. Lastly, the consumers. Many people now think of Elon Musk's tweet when they think of Tesla. Even though it is a car that is beneficial to the environment, something a Tesla owner can be proud of; when someone sees you driving your Tesla, they will just think about how you are supporting a man who has committed securities fraud.
Individualism:

According to Individualism, the main objective of a company should be to maximize profits for their shareholders while remaining within the constraints of the law. It is not up to the businesses to decide what is morally right and wrong, but it is up to society, and the lawmakers to put rules in place which will give business the constraints they need to remain within. Businesses should feel morally obligated to maximize profits because spending shareholders money on any other objectives would be morally unjust. When Musk tweeted, “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding Secured.” the SEC stepped in and slapped Musk with a lawsuit accusing him of fraud. Sean O’Kane and Elizabeth Lopatto write, “Prosecutors note that Musk’s tweets on August 7th sent Tesla’s stock price up, creating immediate value for investors, but that the resulting chaos in the following weeks ultimately did those shareholders harm.” “Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, tells The Verge. “Everything in the last couple months has been very disturbing for investors. The rules didn’t seem to apply, and the SEC believes they did, or should.” Even though Elon Musk’s intentions were the opposite, not only did Musk’s tweet actually create more harm than good for investors, Tesla also had to pay $20 million dollars in fines creating more monetary loss for the company. So, under the microscope of Individualism, Elon Musk gets a horrible efficiency score. Not only did he break the law committing securities fraud, but he also lost the shareholders money directly through the fall in the price of the stock and indirectly through the fine issued to the company.

Elon Musk Smoking Marijuana

Kantianism:

In Kantianism, the business must respect the customers enough to believe they can make the decisions that will best benefit them, and the businesses must do their best to empower the customer to do so. Many people argue that Elon Musk’s motivation for the infamous tweet was his hatred for short sellers. The SEC uses this in the subpoena and cites it as such.  Sean O’Kane and Elizabeth Lopatto write, “Musk has been battling short sellers — traders who bet Tesla stock will decline —on his Twitter account for a while, and this is part of the basis for the SEC’s complaint. By August 18th, the SEC notes, more than $13 billion shares of Tesla were shorted“On August 2nd, Musk emailed Tesla’s board of directors, head of finance, and general counsel to explain his reasoning for taking Tesla private. In the email, Musk wrote that being public “[s]ubjects Tesla to constant defamatory attacks by the short-selling community, resulting in great harm to our valuable brand,”” ““This reinforces the idea that maybe he was trying to manipulate the price, says Chester Spatt, a former chief economist for the SEC”” Musk’s motivation was not lead by a desire to benefit anyone but himself and his ego. The volatility of Tesla’s stock price was extremely high, and still is. Musk’s tweets are definitely a contributor to that. Musk’s intentions were to upset the short sellers by manipulating the share price of Tesla to go up. However, the companies performance and their value according to the market should be in control of the stock price, not his personal twitter account. Musk was treating people as a means, and not and end. For this reason, Musk is morally in the wrong. Under Kantianism Elon Musk receives yet another failed grade as CEO.
Utilitarianism: 

TSLA

Under a Utilitarianism perspective, the main objective of a CEO should be to make decisions that make the majority of people happy. There will always be people that benefit more, and benefit less depending on their perspective, but that is not of concern to the businesses. The Business main concern must be making decisions that coincide with making the vast majority satisfied. Musk’s tweet only benefited one party, and that was a select group of short sellers (and a small amount of day traders). Tae Kim and Leslie Picker from CNBC write, “One of the more notable short sellers in Tesla's stock, Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates, commented on Musk's tweet to CNBC "The short position is the best thing the stock has going for it. 'Musk vs The Shorts' is a far better narrative than 'Tesla vs Mercedes/Audi/Porsche,'" Chanos said.”Any long term investors were hurt as they lost money due to the lawsuit, so shareholders were not happySean O’Kane and Elizabeth Lopatto write, “Tesla’s board should be nervous, both Spatt and Elson say. According to Elson, Tesla board members should expect to be deposed. Spatt says that the board should begin planning for succession. “They need to recognize that they can’t simply rely on Musk,” Spatt says.” “In a separate article titled, Tesla’s accounting and HR heads resign on the same day” Sean O’Kane writes, “Tesla’s chief accounting officer, Dave Morton, has resigned after less than a month on the job”As a result of Musk’s tweet, the employees were also dissatisfied. Under vew the Utilitarianism, Elon Musk has failed. Almost every stakeholder in this situation was left unhappy.
Virtue Theory:
In virtue theory, it is not the result of your actions that determine whether you are morally in the right or the wrong. It is the motivation that caused your decision making that makes you morally just or not. It is Musk’s ideas that made Tesla what it is and he needs to be chairman for the company for Tesla to to reach its full potential. Courage, honesty, wisdom, justice, prudence, temperance, intelligence, insight, care, compassion, leadership, and teamwork, are all positive vices that one most posses and practice in order to be successful in business, and Musk has proven to show these in the past. However, in this situation that pertains to his tweeting, and the manipulation of the stock price, some of the more negative vices such as dishonesty, and selfishness, are being practiced by Musk. Musk was dishonest when he said he had “the funding secured” to take Tesla private. Sean O’Kane and Elizabeth Lopatto write, “Musk later claimed that Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund was in talks with Tesla to potentially fund the effort,” In the write up of Musk’s case, the SEC writes, ““In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source,” prosecutors write in the complaint. Specifically, they say Musk’s “funding secured” tweet was “false and misleading.” Prosecutors say that Musk’s subsequent statements were false and misleading, too.” Musk practices selfishness when he manipulates the stock price just so short sellers will lose. He was treating people as a means, and not and end. When being critiqued under the Virtue Theory, Musk does poorly once again. 

Elon Musk

References:

Grothaus, Michael. “Elon Musk Was Offered a Much Better Deal from the SEC.” Fast       Company, Fast Company, 3 Oct. 2018, www.fastcompany.com/90245708/elon-musk-          was-    offered-a-much-better-deal-from-the-sec.

Kim, Tae, and Leslie Picker. “Elon Musk's Tweet about Going Private Costs Tesla Short Sellers     $1.3 Billion.” CNBC, CNBC, 8 Aug. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/08/07/elon-musks-       tweet-about-going-private-costs-tesla-short-sellers-more-t.html.

O'Kane, Sean, and Elizabeth Lopatto. “Elon Musk Sued by SEC for Securities Fraud.” The             Verge, The Verge, 27 Sept. 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/9/27/17911428/sec-lawsuit-           elon-musk-tesla-funding-tweet.

O'Kane, Sean. “Tesla's Accounting and HR Heads Resign on the Same Day.” The Verge, The                                               Verge, 7 Sept. 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/9/7/17831204/tesla-accounting-hr-executives-       resign.

OLSON, TOM KRISHER and ALEXANDRA. “Elon Musk Sued by SEC Over 'Funding            Secured' Tweet.” Time, Time, 27 Sept. 2018, time.com/5409058/elon-musk-sued-sec-         funding-secured/.