Aadhaar: An Invasion of Privacy

AADHAAR: An Invasion of Privacy

Case

Aadhaar is the world’s largest biometric system in the world, with over 1.71 billion users. The idea was created in 2009, and the first cards were distributed in September of 2010. The system is located in India and has given identity to a large mass of Indian’s who lacked any legal documents before. It is a system that uses finger prints, retina scans, demographic information, and a unique 12 digit number to identify Indian citizens. World Bank Chief Paul Romer described Aadhaar as, “the most sophisticated ID programmed in [the] world””(Pavithraa).

            The issue at hand when it comes to Aadhaar is that the citizens of India believe it is a blatant invasion of privacy. Individuals are being forced to use their use their numbers for almost every aspect of everyday life. The numbers are used for health records, education, and even cellphones. Their information is not in a system that is not the most secure, and they feel unsafe, and scared about it. “Data mining businesses use this information and send targeted advertising (Khera).

            There are numerous examples of fraud and identity theft which makes these individuals, who are forced to use their unique numbers, believe they have no privacy. There have been many attempts to increase security or just hold Aadhaar accountable for their invasion to privacy. Unfortunately, the biggest and most solid argument that Aadhaar has is that there is no constitutional right to privacy in India. ‘Over the past year or so, at least 15 deaths were reported after people were denied basic resources when their identities could not be verified due to Aadhaar system errors. Seven occurred because people were denied subsidized grain on account of Aadhaar related glitches” (Khera).

           

Stakeholders

            The stakeholders in this situation are the individuals who obtain these cards and are forced to use their numbers for so much of their life, they begin to feel threatened because they have lost all right to privacy. They enter these numbers in to these systems, and in the back of their heads they know that their information is not safe or secure.

Individualism

            An individualist wouldn’t view this case as unethical. The idea of individualism is to maximize profits as long as it stays within the law.  Aadhaar hasn’t actually broken any laws since the right to privacy isn’t a constitutional right. They proceed their actions, and their business without losing any profits, and without being on the wrong side of the law. That way it doesn’t act unethically under Individualism.

Utilitarianism

            Viewing this case from a utilitarian standpoint, this case would be highly unethical. Utilitarianism is typically identified with the policy of “maximizing the overall good” or, in a slightly different version, of producing, “the greatest good for the greatest number” (DeJardins 29). With that being said, Aadhaar never produced the greatest good for the greatest number since their system was weak and easily compromised. The stakeholders never felt happy, and never felt safe due to this system, which makes what Aadhaar was doing unethical.

Kantianism

            A Kantian theorist would view this situation as unethical. In Kantianism, their needs to be mutual respect between everyone, and respect for everyone to make their own decisions. In this case, there was no ability for the individuals to make their own decision as they were practically forced to use their unique numbers for everything. “Always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get your way” (Salazar 20). Aadhaar did not respect their stakeholders, and never gave them any say or choice in this case.

Virtue Theory

            A virtue theorist would view this case as unethical. “Act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits” (Salazar 23). Aadhaar did not act virtuous due to the fact that they never made any attempt to make themselves look better. They turned down and neglected all the problems that were being brought to them. They acted very selfishly in a system that has clear flaws, and refused to fix any problems. 

References 

DesJardins, Joseph; DesJardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics (Page 1). McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kindle Edition.

Khera, Reetika. “These Digital IDs Have Cost People Their Privacy - and Their Lives.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 Aug. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/08/09/aadhaar/?utm_term=.103272877fde.

Pavithraa. “Aadhaar Card: An Invasion to Privacy.” Probation: A Study In The Indian Context - Probation of Offenders Act, www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-34-aadhaar-card-an-invasion-to-privacy.html.

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide

to Understanding and Improving the Ethics of Any Business. Print.

Founder of the SevenAwesomeKids YouTube Channel Ian Rylett Arrested for Molestation.

Company Background

YouTube was first started in 2005 when three former PayPal workers, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim, decided to create in February of that year.  They did not own the company for very long because only a year after making it Google bought it for over a billion dollars.  YouTube is a video sharing platform where any person can make a channel and upload videos of whatever their hearts desires, as long as it is within the YouTube guidelines.  YouTube also allows users to like videos, subscribe to users, and even write comments on videos that could explain their gratitude towards the content creator. 

The Controversy

On August 16th, 2018 a man named Ian Rylett was arrested for allegedly molesting a minor.  Rylett was known for running many successful YouTube channels, all of which involves young girls acting in skits.  This arrest happened after Rylett was accused of assaulting a young girl while they were working on a video.  During the arraignment Rylett pleaded not guilty and is set to stand trial later this year.  Rather than removing these videos YouTube simply demonetized the videos, meaning that the content creators could not make money off of the videos.  Many of the girl stars for the channel talked about how manipulative Rylett was, by making the girls spend their own money on the sets and lighting in order to gain a spot on his most popular channel.  They also mentioned how poor they were treated, and how they only stayed because of their love for YouTube and how it will affect their later careers.  

Individualism 

An individualist person would see this case as being ethical.  This is because YouTube did not legally have to delete these channels, and by demonetizing the channels they won't have to give them money thus making their profit larger.  Some may think that YouTube will take a huge hit from this issue, however that is not the case because there are 1000s of other channels on YouTube that will generate profit for YouTube.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarianist would view this case as being unethical.  This is because YouTube never looked at the consequences of their actions.  YouTube should have thought about all of the people who would be unhappy by this content staying up, such as the girls in the videos as well as the families who put their trust in Ian Rylett.  YouTube was only thinking about themselves and the profits they could still receive from this channel.  

Kantianism

A Kantian would view this case as being unethical.  This is because YouTube was using bad will instead of good will when making their decision.  They used bad will because most people will not find keeping the content of a child molester as being morally correct.  In Kantianism there are three formulas and the two that YouTube did not suffice with this decision are The Formula of Humanity, and The Formula of Universal Law.

Virtue Theory

A virtue theorist would view this case as being unethical.  This is because keeping the content up will hurt the character of YouTube, rather than help it.  It will hurt because people will not like seeing content that was created by a child molester.  he two issues hat are used to judge one's character that were broken by YouTube was courage and empathy.




These facts and analyses are based on an original essay conducted by Tyler Williston, "Founder of the SevenAwesomeKids YouTube Channel Ian Rylett Arrested for Molestation."

Works Cited

         1.     Crosby, Rebecca. SevenAwesomeKids Producer Ian Rylett Has Been Arrested for Molestation. StudyBreaks. Retrieved from   

          https://studybreaks.com/tvfilm/sevenawesomekids-producer-ian-rylett-has-been-arrested-for-molestation/

2.     D’Aluisio, Alexandra. Founder of Tween YouTube Channel Arrested for Molesting Underage Girl. Clevver. Retrieved from

 http://www.clevver.com/ian-rylett-arrested-molesting-minor/

3.     Katzowitz, Josh.  Creator of SevenAwesomeKids YouTube Channel charged with molesting underage performer. DailyDot. Retrieved from https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/ian-rylett-sevensupergirls-owner-charged-molestation/

4.     Stephen, Bijan. The co-founder of a prominent tween girl YouTube network has been arrested for molesting a minor. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/24/17896110/youtube-sevenawesomekids-ian-rylett-molestation

5.     Warzel, Charlie. The Creator of One of YouTube’s Top Tween Channels Was Arrested for Molesting A Minor. YouTube Is Keeping The Channel Up. BuzzFeed. Retrieved from 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/youtube-tween-channel-owner-arrested-for-molesting

Juul Labs vs. FDA

The device know as a "Juul"

Company Background:

Starting in June of 2015, the product known as a Juul (a small and portable nicotine vaporizer) hit the market and was made by PAX Labs at the time. In an attempt to avoid a negative vibe from PAX Labs (who makes vaporizers for tobacco and marijuana) Juul Labs became its own company in July of 2017. At this time, the CEO of PAX Labs, Tyler Goldman, was announced as the new CEO of Juul Labs. The goal of this company is supposed to be to help give adult smokers a new option to help them quit cigarettes. With the device, they sell "pods" which contain the vape liquid which will be vaporized when using the device. Each pod contains 200 puffs and has the nicotine levels of one pack of cigarettes.

The Controversy:

This ad shows how Juul uses young models in their marketing
practices along with the fruity flavors offered.

Under age vaping has become a huge concern in today's times with kids getting addicted earlier and earlier. These kids are developing habits that will follow them through life, and companies like Juul are taking the heat for it all. In the past year, there have been many accusations of companies such as Juul, along with others, marketing and altering their products to attract kinds under the age of 18 (the federal legal age to buy nicotine products.) The biggest issue along with allegedly marketing to kids, is their fruity flavors that can attract the eye of kids. On April 24, 2018, the FDA released a press release with a plan going forward. The first thing to be implemented is a wide spread investigation into stores selling to minors, and get them more strict. The second is to contact companies like eBay to keep the sale of Juul and similar products unavailable for purchase. Third is the FDA will be contacting companies such as Juul Labs and requesting information about how they are going to get kids to stop using their products. The fourth was that there will be “additional enforcement action” for companies that are intentionally promoting to kids. The last step will be to continue research and health campaigns around electronic cigarettes. Over the next few months, there was a very large amount of stores that continued to not ask for identification and there was no signs of under age nicotine consumption going down. This didn't work, and led to another press release from the FDA on September 12. This was a quick announcement saying that Juul Labs and similar companies had 60 days to prove they have a marketing strategy to get kids off of these products, but nobody was able to do it in time. In the middle of all that time, the FDA went into Juul Labs and seized thousands of documents, with no advancements yet. The FDA is still holding the information contained in the documents, but has not taken any further action to target Juul's marketing practices. In an announcement made on November 8, 2018, the FDA claims to stop the sale of majority of flavors from the shelves in gas stations. What this means for the consumer is that they will now only be able to buy mint, menthol, and both tobacco flavors at all the normal places that they could before. In order to get any of the other flavors that are offered such as mango, fruit medley, creme brulee, and cool cucumber, people will have to go into tobacco and vape shops. The reasoning behind this is to keep the fruity and appealing flavors out of sight of kids. It is thought that if kids don’t see them frequently, and it is not as “in their face” then they will be more likely to stay away from them or never try them at all.

Individualism:

Under individualism, the only guideline is that everything must be within the law, as stated
by Milton Friedman. This makes it difficult to analyze the actions of Juul and how moral

they are in the case with attracting minors to their products. In terms of abiding by the law, the company never actually broke any laws seeing as the underage sales were getting to the kids by means of adults or stores not ID’ing kids. There has also not been any known proof that Juul had a marketing campaign together that would support kids to start using their products. As far as the public is currently concerned they are still within the moral guidelines because they have not legally been in trouble for their marketing practices. Although there was never anymore said about the seized documents from their headquarters, it is assumed that there were documents that could get them in trouble. If this case goes on to expose that they have had secret plans about this all along then they will no longer fit the guidelines of individualism. With that being said, at this point in time, Juul is currently still moral by an individualist approach since they have not been proven to have broken the laws in anyway.

A shocking, yet realistic fact about how much this product has penetrated our schools. 

 Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism is all about the best benefit for everyone. The goal is to create as much happiness for the affected parties while making sure to not cause unhappiness among other affected parties. In the case of Juul, incorporating the best for everyone versus what makes people the happiest makes the most sense. For the case of attracting and marketing to under age kids, the children getting long term damage to their health along with the parents of these kids are the most affected. These kids may be happy now, which supports that they follow a utilitarian guideline, but the kids will not be happy down the road. The company is attracting these kids and getting them addicted early on to make them seem like they are happy with their choices now, but only causes health problems and addiction later in life. These people will not be happy with the choices of Juul down the road. Along with these kids, parents are up in arms about Juuls. So many kids are getting these confiscated everyday by parents and teachers and it is becoming an issue to worry about. There have been social outcries about Juul and majority of adults are not happy at all about it. The kids many not be unhappy yet, but the parents definitely are. It has become such an issue in schools that the teachers and administration are having to waste time with them, and it affects their schedules. All this unhappiness would outweigh the happiness for Juul because they are making money, and according to a utilitarian, it is not ethical.

Kantianism:

Developed by Immanuel Kant, this theory is all about being simply rational. There are four parts to rationality according to Kant. These include trying to be as rational as possible, allow others to make the most rational decision, strive for goodwill, and have a general respect for people. Juul’s biggest issue with this theory is allowing others to make rational decisions. They are fully exploiting young kids who cannot make these decisions on their own, as they are being heavily influenced by the marketing promotions that make it seem so fun and harmless. Seeing as the company only promotes the positives of the device, and do their best to leave out the downside, these kids don’t have the ability to see what is truly wrong with the product. Another issue for Juul is that they are just not treating these people with respect. The company knows that they are selling an addictive product, but they don’t seem to care. Although it is up for debate, it is said to be a safer method for consuming nicotine, they still know the dangers and hardly discuss that the product is intended for people looking to quit cigarettes. By getting people to stop smoking is helping people but getting people addicted is far from respectful towards them. They know that if they get kids addicted that they will become lifelong customers, and that is only using people as an end instead of a mean. Due to this, Kant would not say that Juul Labs is being ethical.

Virtue Theory:
Virtue theory tests if a person or company is virtuous. Created by Aristotle, this theory has four main parts to test and they include courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. According to Aristotle, in order to live a virtuous life, one must also live a rational life, which is where Kantianism relates to this theory also. In the case against Juul, they are not virtuous either. They are not honest to everyone here, because they have manipulative marketing ads, and do everything in their power to educate and inform kids on the dangers of getting addicted to nicotine at such a young age. The other thing that has been such an issue for Juul is being courageous. They are hiding behind the laws and are continuing to do as much as they can to push the product. There has been a large increase of Juul use on social media. This makes the product look fun and innocent while also promoting the image that everyone does it, and you’re weird for not owning one. This strong social media presence makes it hard to avoid them and Juul has done nothing to try and stop it. They see it all as free advertising, but they do not have the courage to warm people of the dangers.

These facts and analyses are based on an original essay conducted by Nicholas Daponte, "FDA vs. Juul Labs for sale to minors (2018)"

References

Felberbaum, Michael. Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new enforcement actions and a
Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan to stop youth use of, and access to, JUUL and other e-cigarettes, FDA, April 24, 2018

https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm605432.htm

Felberbaum, Michael. Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new steps to address
epidemic of youth e-cigarette use, FDA, September 12, 2018

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm620185.htm

Hoffman, Jan. F.D.A. Seizes Documents From Juul Headquarters, The New York Times, October 2, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/health/juul-ecigarettes-fda-raid.html

Lavito, Angelica. FDA to consider limiting e-cigarette sales to vape shops to curb youth use, CNBC, October 19, 2018

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/19/as-youth-e-cigarette-use-surges-fda-may-stop-convenience-store-sales.html

 Lavito, Angelica. FDA threatens to pull new products from nearly two dozen e-cigarette companies, CNBC, October 12, 2018

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/12/fda-threatens-to-pull-new-products-from-21-e-cigarette-companies.html

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding and Improving The Ethics of Any Business.

Starbucks in Hot Water After Potential Racist Call to The Police (2018)

The Case

Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson are two African American men who decided on April 12th that
they were going to go to a Starbucks in Philadelphia to have a business meeting.  They arrived at about
4:35 p.m. for their meeting which was scheduled for 4:45, they did not order anything right away when

Logo for Starbucks

they came into the store. Nelson asked the manager to use the bathroom, which he got the response that it was only for paying customers.  Nelson said that he “left it at that” and then went back to the table with Robinson and continued to wait for their business partner. the manager then approached the two men and asked if they would like to order anything, the two men declined the offer.  The manager asked the men to leave, the men declined this offer as well, saying that they were waiting for somebody. The manager then called the police only two minutes after the men originally came into the store.  The policemen walked up to the men and immediately asked them to leave, not asking for any context of what the issue was “We wasn’t read any rights - nothing" Robinson said. "Just double-lock handcuffs behind our backs and escorted out and put into a squad car" Throughout this their business partner showed up as well.Robinson and Nelson were brought down to the police station where they were held for hours after their arrest.  They were let out at approximately 1:30 am. The men in the end were not charged with anything because there was “a lack of evidence that a crime was committed”.

Stakeholders

Starbucks will always depend on their relationship with its Stakeholders.  If Starbucks’ customers start to not want to support the company or the products, the company will fall off.  There are plenty of other companies doing about the same thing as Starbucks, sell coffee. If all of the consumers realize that they could just go across the street and get coffee from somewhere else that is more ethical, a lot of customers would.  A solid relationship with consumers should be Starbucks main concern. This also means that consumer safety is a huge part of that too. If a customer does not feel like they can safely go into the store and order their food, the simply will not. With this incident it made a lot of African Americans feel like Starbucks might not be the safest place to go get their coffee, in turn, making Starbucks lose some of their customers.

Picture From Outside a Starbucks with Protesters

 Dunkin is also a very big stakeholder in this incident. Dunkin is Starbucks leading competitor and they have the same type of company, a coffee shop. If consumers decide that they will not be getting their coffee from Starbucks anymore, most likely they will go to Dunkin, since it is as readily available as Starbucks.

Individualism

From an individualist perspective, the management at Starbucks did not do anything ethically wrong, but in the end outcome is not desired because it lowered profits.  Milton Friedman stated that the main goal of management is to maximize profits for the company while staying within the boundaries of the law. What the manager did was not “illegal” in any way, but the after affects of what happened is not what an individualist person wants. An individualist would not believe that kicking a non-paying customer out of their store is not a big deal, because they are not helping raise profits so they do not need to be on the premises.  However, when they did this, it made thousands of paying customers no longer want to go spend their money at Starbucks. This is the opposite of what Friedman would want because they are losing way more profit rather than if they just let the two men sit in the store and wait for their business associate.  

Utilitarianism

Starbucks Employees Receiving Training

A Utilitarian would view Starbucks as being unethical in this situation because of the mass amounts of consequences that came along with it.  Utilitarianism tells us that we can determine the ethical significance of any action by looking to the consequences of that act.  If the manager at Starbucks thought out the possible consequences of his actions he probably would not have kicked the men out..  He kicked the men out for not buying anything, which should not be a huge deal, but the policy for kicking people out was not the same for everybody. The consequences that actually occurred from this event were very bad for everybody.  It made Starbucks look unethical and racist, made people start to boycott the store, and it made them shut down for a day to figure out how to fix this. The executives of Starbucks did try to handle the situation as ethically as possible and did a pretty good job of doing so.  The CEO came out and apologized and showed that Starbucks does care about the customers and that they will fix this issue. A Utilitarian would definitely not do what the manager at this Starbucks would do.  They would first think of what the repercussions were and decide that calling the police of the two black men would not be worth the consequences that may come out of it.

Kantianism

CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz

A Kantian thinker would be considering what the thought process was with kicking these men out.  Kantianism does not make decisions based on consequences. Kantian thinkers do not look at the consequences, but they look at the will of the person who made the decision.  This description best fits how the manager at Starbucks was probable thinking when he mad the call to the police. The thought process with the manager at Starbucks was most likely that the men did not purchase anything from the store, so they did not need to be there.  The manager did ask the men to leave, they denied, which likely prompted the manager to call the police. What the manager did was not unethical for the fact that the men were not purchasing anything and that the store does have the right to refuse service to anybody that they please, however the men were in the store for a very short time.  The time that the men spent in the lobby before the police were called was only about two minutes. A Kantian thinker would have to take this into consideration too, that the manager had very little patience in his decision to call the police.  The manager made a judgement call which turned out to be a pretty poor call in the amount of people it angered, but his decision was not very unethical in a Kantian way of thinking.

Virtue Theory

When looking at a situation the way a virtue theorist would, you will have to compare it slightly to the way a Kantian thinker would.  It is similar because they think more on the means and not focus a lot on the end outcome. When looking at how a virtue theorist should act it states in the Case Manual that they should “Act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious pr bad character traits”.  In saying this it would make the manager at the Starbucks look very unethical. This is because he showed poor character in the decisions that he made towards these two men. Starbucks violated virtues that we use to judge somebody’s character.  One virtue that the manager lacked was patience. He showed lack of patience with these men in how he called the police within 2 minutes of the men coming into the store.  The manager at Starbucks also lacked empathy, a trait that shows how much you care about people other than yourself.  He showed that he lacked empathy because he had the audacity to call the police on two black businessmen for trying to have a little meeting in Starbucks, a store that is known for having people come in and do work.  There was no reason for the manager to have to police come and arrest these men for being there.

These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Riley Delaney

Sources

“Business Ethics and Compliance.” Starbucks Coffee Company, www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/business-ethics-and-compliance.

DesJardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics. New York City: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, 2014.

Hursthouse, Rosalind, and Glen Pettigrove. “Virtue Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 18 July 2003, plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.

Jones, Charisse. “Is It OK to Kick Someone out of a Store?” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 9 Aug. 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/18/starbucks-philadelphia-arrests-raise-question-ever-ok-kick-someone-out-your-store-sometimes-but-race/521750002.

Lepore, Meredith. “15 Facts About Starbucks That Will Blow Your Mind.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 25 Mar. 2011, www.businessinsider.com/15-facts-about-starbucks-that-will-blow-your-mind-2011-3.

Miller, Hayley. “Black Men Arrested At Starbucks Said They Were There For 2 Minutes Before 911 Call.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 19 Apr. 2018, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-men-speak-out-starbucks-arrest_us_5ad8809fe4b0e4d0715dc393.

Santa Clara University. “The CEO of Starbucks and the Practice of Ethical Leadership.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/leadership-ethics/resources/the-ceo-of-starbucks-and-the-practice-of-ethical-leadership/.

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

Stevens, Matt. “Starbucks C.E.O. Apologizes After Arrests of 2 Black Men.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Apr. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-men-arrest.html?login=email&auth=login-email.

Ford Motor Company: seat belt fire recall (2018)

-Joseph Motta

Background :

Ford Motor company was founded by Henry Ford on June 16th 1903.Not long after on October 1, 1908 the first production Model T Ford, this is where it all began. Today ford is the second largest United states auto maker generating about $7.6 billion in 2017 which grew 65% from the prior year.  Ford motor company is not only the second largest United States automaker, but their product the F-series pickup trucks have been the United States number one sold vehicle for decades.

Controversy:

During the fall leading into 2018 Ford motor company and received word about 17 instances of occurrences where the pretensioners inside the seat belt mechanism cause a fire in there line of f-series pickup trucks.When this small explosion takes place in the seat belt mechanism a gas is released, this gas has potential to ignite from high static and friction of the seat belt retracting and locking in place. This potential fire risk is because of insulation and carpet like material in the door/seat belt area which is flammable. As a result, ford had to issue a recall totaling about 2 million f-series pickup trucks from the years 2015 to 2018 This includes crew cabs, 4-doors, and super cab trucks as well. which is all pickups manufactured from March 12, 2014 through August 23rd 2018 in Dearborn Mich, from August 20th 2014, through August 23rd 2018, in Kansas City.  The two million trucks will result in a loss of approximately $140 million in capital for Ford. This recall affected 1.62 million U.S. vehicles, 340,000 in Canada and 37,000 in Mexico.

Individualism:

Theorist Milton Friedman said “The only goal of business is to profit, so the only obligation that the business person has is to maximize profit for the owners or stockholders”(Salazar 17). Friedman also believes these profits must be earned in a” legal way". Ford is attempting to abide by those standards, an example would be issuing the recall is lawfully the correct thing to do because the manufacturing mistake is to blame. therefore Ford is law abiding in the situation, but are they profiting? the answer is no, issuing a recall is a dramatic loss in capital. It can be seen by the stakeholders or the public as a social responsibility issuing the recall. Machan's theory of individualism had what Friedman's lacked, and that is the aspect of social responsibility . Machan believed that the manufacturer needs to be liked by the customers first in order to stay afloat in business. Ford actions taken by issuing a recall have helped them in the long run, and customers being happy they will not have to pay for a mistake in manufacturing .

Utilitarianism :

The utilitarianism theory states we need to follow whatever action leads us to good things and avoid bad things, when good things happen it will benefit the economy(Salazar 17). This case is viewed by the utilitarian in the sense that they are trying to right their wrongs. A mistake in manufacturing should not lead to the total decline of the business, but as a result Ford made the rational choice of issuing the recall because it will lead to better things in the future. Bad things have already arrived so the only thing the utilitarian can do is accept this problem and do what will lead to a better future Therefore Ford's actions in this cause can be determined to have minor utilitarian traits.

Kantianism :

The kantian would view this situation and make two assumptions, one is we need to respect our customers needs and two we need to make rational choices. The customer is mainly the individual who has been affected by this recall because they have to take time and effort to go out of there way to fix it now. Therefore the rational choice ford and chosen to make is issuing a recall. It will hold the manufacturer accountable for the mistake and apologize to the customers and stakeholders. The loss in capital does not affect the kantian because they are not money motivated. The kantian just simply says "we made a mistake, "so now we will fix it". Most if not all of kantians theories support fords decisions, this is why it may be one of the most influential theories practiced.

Virtue theory:

A virtue theorist in this case would have similar actions to the utilitarian and the kantian. They support ideas of having respect and making rational choices. virtue theorist at time say " what causes this organism to thrive". the organism would be our model-f series pickup trucks and the only thing allowing the business to thrive would be the customers. That being said no customer is happy when there seat belt all of a sudden burst into flames. Virtue theorists use honesty, courage, temperance, and justice, these four core virtues are what theorist believe causes businesses to function properly. Therefore Fords actions and results from this case can be concluded that they respect their customers needs and need to make rational choices for their stakeholders and future customers by being dependable.

These facts and analyses are based on an original essay conducted by Joseph Motta :  FORD: SEAT BELT FIRE RECALL (2018)

-Bomey, Nathan. “Ford Recalls 2 Million F-150 Pickup Trucks to Fix Seat Belt Defect Causing Fires.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 7 Sept. 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/09/06/ford-f-150-recall-ford-fix-2-million-pickups-seat-belt-defect/1209785002/.

-Gastelu, Gary. “Ford Recalling 2 Million F-150s Due to Fire Risk.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 6 Sept. 2018,

www.foxnews.com/auto/ford-recalling-2-million-f-150s-due-to-fire-risk.

-Kennedy, Merrit. “2 Million Ford Trucks Recalled Because Of Reported Seat Belt Fires.” NPR, NPR, 6 Sept. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/09/06/645284416/two-million-ford-trucks-recalled-due-to-reported-seat-belt-fires.

-Prang, Allison. “Ford Recalls Two Million Trucks After Reports of Seat-Belt Malfunction.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 7 Sept. 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/ford-to-recall-f-150-models-for-seat-belt-equipment-issue-1536238533.

-Shepardson, David. “Ford Recalls Two Million Trucks over Seat Belt Fire Risk - ET Auto.” ETAuto.com, 7 Sept. 2018,

https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/commercial-vehicle/ford-recalls-two-million-trucks-over-seat-belt-fire-risk/65714926

-Shepardson, David. “Ford Recalls Two Million Trucks over Seat Belt Fire Risk.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 6 Sept. 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-recall/ford-recalls-two-million-trucks-over-seat-belt-fire-risk-idUSKCN1LM1OA