Lufthansa sues passenger for skipping flight (February 2019)

Skiplagging: Savvy Flyers Only

Many people everyday go on flights to get to an intended destination. For some people, flying can be a very common thing that is implemented into their lives and careers that they will try to do whatever they can to save money. For some sneaky flyers, a loophole has been created that can help them find the cheapest airfare tickets available, and that is what Lufthansa Airlines, a German airline is currently suing an unnamed passenger for using a loophole technique known as Skiplagging.

Skiplagging is defined as “a money-saving method where passengers leave their flight at a layover instead of the final destination”(Morris). The unnamed passenger had purchased a ticket from Lufthansa and was supposed to fly to Oslo from Seattle via Frankfurt in April of 2016, but when he got to Frankfurt, he skipped the connecting flight to Oslo and went to Berlin on a separate ticket. By doing this, he saved money of about 657 euros, which is the American equivalent of $743. By using this technique, the unnamed passenger saved money with the price of the two tickets he purchased then purchasing a nonstop flight from Seattle to Berlin, which was his intended destination all along.

This isn't the first time that this technique has been brought to the courts. in 2015, creator of Skiplagged.com Aktarer Zaman was sued by United Airlines for using the skiplagging technique.In an article for CNN.com, it states “In February, Orbitz backed out of the case and settled with Zaman, but United kept pursuing it. In May, a judge in Chicago dismissed the case because Skiplagged wasn't in his jurisdiction. United didn't pursue further legal action”(Gillespie). As for outside people looking into this case, many people don't see anything wrong with flyers using the skiplagging technique. In a article for BBC.com, it states “So, are passengers gaming a system stacked against them? After all, the airline offered the seat at a given price and received that price. The New York Times’ Ethicist column saw no problem with skiplagging. Commenters agreed, with one concluding making a purchase does not oblige you to use it”(Creedy).

Although the case was thrown away for Lufthansa not giving full information as to why they were charging the unnamed passenger with the amount of money that his ticket had cost plus interest, Lufthansa is attempting to appeal the case and the reason why could be very sneaky on their behalf. An article by Centreforaviation.com states that the new management for Oslo Gardermoen airport has made it its goal to bring in more tourists to the area from Asia, as well as North America. It states “Despite the goals for Asian growth, the larger expansion opportunity for Oslo is in the North American market. While Oslo would like to see North American carriers enter Oslo, Norwegian Air Shuttle growth has been large, and provoked a growth response from SAS”(centreforaviation.com). This statement on the website shows that Oslo airport’s new management has a goal to bring in more of a North American market to their airport, bringing in more tourism for their city. If Lufthansa were to have a partnership with the airport and were to have some sort of financial agreement that they receive money from them for bringing in more North American tourism, then this could explain why Lufthansa is still pursuing this case due to Oslo not paying them because they did not successfully bring the passenger who skipped the second leg of his flight.In an article for DailyMail.com, it states “According to German court documents, the case was thrown out because the airline failed to fully explain how it had arrived at the compensation figure of €2,112 (£1,852)”(Ibbetson). Failing to explain how they had arrived at the compensation figure that they were suing the man for could prove that Lufthansa was attempting to receive money that they had lost from Oslo due to the passenger not flying into their airport, which loses tourism for the city.

Although many different people use Skiplagged.com and take the risk of facing these issues every time they use the loophole website, the main stakeholders that affected in this case are Lufthansa Airlines, and the unnamed passenger that is being sued. These stakeholders are affected by different aspects of the case, and the following four ethical theories of Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Individualism brings an interesting look into this case and how the ethical theory is applied to the stakeholders. Individualism is defined as everyone being able to pursue their own interests, but no one has the right to make their choices for other people. This is a very interesting way to look at how Lufthansa should be looking at the case, because they should not be upset and angry that their passengers are utilizing the skiplagging technique because they are pursuing their own interests and doing what is best for them, and have the right for no one else to say that anything is wrong with it. This is a very important point to make with the case regarding individualism, because Lufthansa is simply suing the passenger because he violated the terms and conditions that Lufthansa set out, but the passenger has the right to pursue his own interests of skipping the second leg of the flight according to individualism. A second portion of individualism that is very crucial to looking at is Milton Friedman’s view of Individualism and how it plays into Lufthansa Airlines. Friedman believed that the only goal of a business is to profit, so the only obligation that the business has is to maximize their profit and they are attempting to do this by suing the passenger for the amount of the second leg of the flight he skipped plus interest. This is a very crucial point to bring up, because from Friedman’s view of Individualism, Lufthansa is doing nothing wrong by wanting to maximize their profit from the unnamed passenger but then again according to individualism, the unnamed passenger is entitled to make their own choices without anyone else saying it is wrong.

Utilitarianism brings in another strong interpretation of the case, and whether or not both sides of the case are acting ethical. Utilitarianism is viewed as all actions that are done by someone are aiming at something that is good, and that we are seeking things because they make us happy. By completing things in certain ways, this will maximize everyone's happiness with something in the short and long term. For the different stakeholders that are involved, both sides maximized their happiness in different ways. For the passenger, he is maximizing his happiness by using the skiplagging website, without worrying about any repercussions being put against him for using the technique. This is going to maximize the passengers happiness, because he is able to use the skiplagging technique and get off scotch free. As for Lufthansa, their happiness can be maximized within the case if they were to drop their prices on their flights, so then their passengers don't have to use the skiplagging website. Skiplagging is a money saving alternative, and if Lufthansa were to drop the prices on their flights so that passengers wouldn't have to use this alternative, then their happiness would be maximized as well because passengers would be satisfied with the price of their flights and they wouldn't have passengers skipping legs of flights and not being able to fill in those empty seats.

Kantianism examines this case in a different way then the other ethical theories represented, as it focuses on motivations. Kantianism has four major principles that come into play with this ethical theory and those are defined as act rationally, allow and help people to make rational decisions, respect people and their autonomy, and be motivated by goodwill by seeking to do what is right because it is right. As for looking at Lufthansa Airlines from a Kantian perspective, they are not correctly following the formula of humanity that is represented within Kantian ethics. The formula of humanity explains that you are to act in such a way that you treat humanity, always as an end and never simply as a means. For Lufthansa, their motivation for suing the passenger was because they wanted him to pay the money that he owed them for the leg of the flight that he skipped plus interest. This is ethically wrong from a Kantian perspective, because their motivation is to get the money from the passenger because they believed that he wronged them by utilizing the skiplagging technique, not by doing it because it is the right thing to do. By suing the passenger, Lufthansa is attempting to use this as a scare tactic that will worry other people who use the skiplagging technique that if they attempt this with Lufthansa, there will be consequences.

Finally, Virtue Theory digs into the case and whether or not certain characteristics within the stakeholders apply to the virtue theory.Virtue theory is based on Aristotle's ethics which discussed how people need to exercise rationality in order to function and live good lives. Virtues are defined as characteristics that allow things to function properly that are called “good making features” or “virtues”. As for the different types of character that come into play with virtue theory, four different characteristics were named as Courage, Honesty, Temperance/Self Control, and Justice/Fairness. As for the passenger and Lufthansa airlines, each stakeholder can look at these different types of characteristics and apply them to how they have gone across what we know of to be this case. Courage was displayed by the passenger for using the skiplagging technique as he could've been caught by Lufthansa and put on the flight that he didn't intend to be on, ultimately not bringing him to his real destination. Regarding honesty, this case was unethically correct in this sense of virtue theory because the passenger had agreed to taking the full flight when he signed off on the terms and conditions placed by Lufthansa. When it comes to temperance/self control, no sign of either was shown in this case, eliminating it from discussion. Finally, for justice/fairness, it is unfair to other flyers and the airline that the passenger had skipped the second leg of the flight when the airline was holding the seat for him believing that he was going to board when he planned to not take the second leg of the flight all along. Justice is also shown by Lufthansa because they attempted to sue the passenger since he did not comply to the terms and conditions that they set for him. Virtue theory takes an interesting look on this case, and how the different characteristics come into play with different parts of the case.








When it comes to my personal opinion regarding this case, Lufthansa is acting very unethical and is not going in the right direction in appealing this court case. Yes, they are attempting to appeal so that they can show that they are not going to go down easy with this controversy, but due to them not giving the full reason as to why they are charging the passenger the amount they are, that puts them in a bad spot. If Lufthansa were to come out with the reason why they are charging the passenger for the amount their charging him with, there could be a different result in the case, and possibly end in their favor.

For Lufthansa to bounce back from this controversy and reestablish themselves as a major competitor in their field, they need to follow a certain number of steps to get back to being a well known airline, and I have come up with these different steps. First, Lufthansa needs to make sure that their passengers have not bought another ticket that could conflict with the original ticket that they have purchased, that way they can know for sure whether or not that the passenger will be present. Next, Lufthansa needs to drop their prices on their flights so that they can bring in more passengers directly from their own airline and not from other types of ticket buying sites. If Lufthansa were to center themselves around a mission of providing flyers with a very affordable plane ticket while offering a safe and comfortable environment, then this will raise their profit and bring in more customers to Lufthansa and have them known as one of the best airlines to consider flying with.

To add on to the action plan to get Lufthansa Airlines back on their feet, Lufthansa also needs to take part in some re-marketing for their company. If they come out with fresh, new marketing campaigns that label them as a friendly and affordable airline that the everyday person can afford, then word is going to get out about their brand and how they are a loyal airline carrier. Also, Lufthansa can increase their ethical productivity and monitoring of their ethics by retraining their employees on making sure that people are getting on all the legs of their flights. I also believe that bringing in a new security group under Lufthansa's name that will check if all passengers will be boarding all flights involved in their purchase would be very effective. This would increase security for the airline, and they would also have a little more control ensuring that passengers aren't skipping out on their flights and using the skiplagging technique. This plan is also going to bring in more profit for Lufthansa, as lowering prices will appeal to people with a cheaper budget when it comes to purchasing a flight. For Lufthansa to improve their business and bounce back after this controversy, having a strong action plan of dropping airline prices along with making some improvements to their security systems within airports could be a very effective way of getting them back on the right track with people who use their airline.

By: Connor McDowell

References

Capa. “Oslo Gardermoen Airport Seeks Asian Flights to Leverage Tourism to Norway; Perhaps the New Iceland.” CAPA - Centre for Aviation, CAPA - Centre for Aviation, 9 Oct. 2016, centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/oslo-gardermoen-airport-seeks-asian-flights-to-leverage-tourism-to-norway-perhaps-the-new-iceland-305357.

Creedy, Kathryn B. “Capital - Skiplagging: The Travel Trick That Airlines Hate.” BBC News, BBC, 26 Feb. 2019, www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190226-the-travel-trick-that-airlines-hate.

Gillespie, Patrick. “How a 23-Year-Old Beat United Airlines.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, 31 Dec. 2015, 4:01pm, money.cnn.com/2015/12/31/investing/aktarer-zaman-how-i-beat-united-airlines/index.html.

Ibbetson, Ross. “Lawyer for Man Sued by Lufthansa for Not Using Last Leg of Plane Journey Says Client Will WIN Case.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 13 Feb. 2019, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6696041/Lawyer-man-sued-Lufthansa-not-using-leg-plane-journey-says-client-WIN-case.html.

Morris, Chris. “Lufthansa Is Suing a Passenger for Missing a Flight.” Fortune, Fortune, 2019, fortune.com/2019/02/12/lufthansas-suing-skip-lagging-passenger-for-intentionally-missing-flight/.

Sanofi Pasteur: Dengvaxia Controversy (April 2016 - Present)

       In 2015, the Philippine Food and Drug Administration approved the sale and distribution of a drug produced by the French drug company, Sanofi Pasteur. The drug is dengvaxia and it was supposed to help as a cure to the very widespread disease in Latin America and South America known as dengue. Dengue, also known as, “Break Bone Fever” is spread by mosquitoes and affects more than 400 million people worldwide while leaving nearly 500,000 people hospitalized yearly. Approximately 20% of those hospitalized, end up passing away due to the disease yearly. Infection rates in the Philippine’s alone can get as high at 90%. Symptoms of break bone fever can be very excruciating and can range from throwing up, pain behind the eyes, fevers, lingering weakness and joint pain. On the severe end of the spectrum, dengue can cause hemorrhage or shock that can result in death.

Jes Aznar for The New York Times

       Not too long after the first vaccination drive in schools, people started to figure out the dangers of the dengvaxia vaccination. Christine Mae de Guzman was one of the first students to receive the vaccines because she went to school in one of the regions that were given the vaccination drives at school. The vaccination is given in three doses, six months apart. Christine just finished up her second dosage when she started to have a throbbing headache. Days after having the second dosage and the throbbing headache, Christine passed away. Her death was the first event that sparked concern in the Philippine people and the Philippine government of the possible hidden dangers that the dengvaxia vaccine actually holds within. After his daughter’s death, Christine’s father said, “It was for health” when asked if he approved of the vaccination at the time.
       After concerns of the vaccine sparked, that is when Sanofi Pasteur released information about the vaccine that should had been released much sooner. They said that if you were not currently infected with dengue that you should not receive the vaccination because it can cause a worse strain of the infection that may lead to death. The people of the Philippine's began to feel as if they were the guinea pigs of Sanofi Pasteur.

Aaron Favila

The Philippine government stopped all vaccinations immedietly and demanded a refund from Sanofi Pasteur. Sanofi refused because they said they would then be accepting defeat when in fact people over nine that were not already infected, the vaccine was 66% effective in preventing dengue. While, people over nine that were already infected and then given the vaccine, it was 81.9% effective.
       Almost four year after the approval of the vaccine and almost three years after the first vaccination drive, the Philippine government is bringing Sanofi Pasteur to court to hold them accountable for what they hid and did to the country. The government is filing six criminal charges against Sanofi Pasteur officials over the death of fourteen children that were given the dengvaxia vaccine and passed away due to it. The Philippine justice department has found positive grounds that will allow them to hold Sanofi officials liable for, “Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide”.
       There are many stakeholders that are involved in this case. Some for bad reasons and others because Sanofi Pasteur put them in a bad situation. The biggest stakeholder is clearly Sanofi Pasteur because their name is now known as the one who released a vaccination that killed innocent children and kept the risks a secret for almost a year. This will affect their reputation, their trustworthiness and will cause their sales and business to drop for the years to come. Another set of stakeholders are all of the children that were given the vaccination because their lives are literally at stake. They were given a vaccination that could, in fact, take their lives from them because the vaccine could put a worse strain of the infection in their body. The Philippine government is the final stakeholder because they were the ones that bought all of the vaccines and distributed them to the children. They could lose the trust of their citizens due to the fact that they distributed something that could harm people when it’s supposed to help them. Even though the government didn’t know of the risks, citizens may still be hesitant to trust them because they may think it could happen again without the government pushing to really find out all side effects and risks of the drug they are giving out.
       Basic principles of Kantianism state that people should act rationally and to not consider yourself exempt for the rules of law or humanity. Kantianism says that you should allow and help people make rational decisions for themselves and respect other people’s individual needs and differences. The Formula of Humanity states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant, MM 429). Simply put, through The Formula of Humanity, Kant is saying that you should treat people as another person. Do not treat them as an object and do not t treat them as if they are less than you are. Treat people the way you would like to be treated. If you would not do a certain action towards yourself then do not do it towards someone else. A Kantian would say what Sanofi Pasteur did to the Philippine people is clearly unethical. Sanofi distributed a drug for their own sake to make money and see how it would work because they knew it could get passed and distributed to the people affected by Dengue. They knew the possible harm that the vaccine could cause people who received it but did not tell the world for almost a year because they were using the people as test dummies (guinea pigs). By Sanofi not releasing the risks to the public in the beginning, they took the ability away from people for them to make their own rational decisions knowing what the risks are. Title 42 300aa-26 clearly states in section c that every company has to release all risks associated with the vaccine to the people before their vaccination. By taking away the ability to make rational decisions from the Philippine people, Sanofi did not respect people or their individual differences and needs.What Sanofi Pasteur did goes directly against the basic principles of Kantianism and The Formula of Humanity. They treated the Philippine people directly as a means and not as an end. Under the view of a Kantian, what Sanofi Pasteur did, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       The equation for individualism is, Individualism = Egoism (Selfishness) + Rights-based Constraints. This equation in words is saying that everyone has the right to pursue their own interests but they should not pursue them in a way that will hurt other people and that will take the ability away from other people to make decisions for themselves.In business ethics, there are two different types of individualistic views. One of those views is by Milton Friedman. Friedman said that the only goal of a business is to profit and to maximize profit for the owner and the stockholders. Friedman’s individualism does not consider a few things. Those things are; the identity of the company and leaders prior to investors, the motivation f investors to invest in socially responsible businesses and the motivation of customers and employees to choose socially responsible businesses. The other individualistic view is by Tibor Machan. Machan’s individualism says that the only direct goal of business is to profit, and the primary obligation of the businessperson is to maximize profit. Machan also states that the direct goal of profiting may have to be met by pursuing indirect goals first that are not directly aimed at profiting. On top of that, Machan’s individualism acknowledges that sometimes business people may have to prioritize goals other goals for the business over top of the goal to maximize profit. In the case of the dengvaxia controversy, a follower of Friedman’s individualism and Machan’s individualism would disagree with what Sanofi Pasteur did. Even though Sanofi Pasteur did what was in their best interest to maximize profit, they did not do it within the law or for the heath/safety of others. Sanofi released the dengvaxia vaccine because they knew it would make them a lot of money in countries that dengue is a large issue in.

This is because it was the first vaccine approved for use to help cure the infection. If you did not analyze the case any further past that point then someone following Freidman or Machan's individualism would find this case to be ethical because they did what they had to do to maximize profit for the business. Further analysis would show that there was very important information that Sanofi kept from the public. Sanofi hid important information from the public that could have possibly saved many more people from getting sick and saving fourteen young lives. When Sanofi did not release the facts about the use or side effects of the vaccine before distributing, they were maximizing profit without doing it within in the law. They hid important facts such as; you were not supposed to receive the vaccination if you were not infected and that if you did receive the vaccination without having the dengue infection then there was a ten percent chance you could get a much worse strain of the infection. Sanofi Pasteur had multiple chances to release vaccination information to the public before distributing the vaccine. They passed up on all of these opportunities so they could maximize profit for themselves but they did not do it within the law. They did not allow people to make choices for themselves; they made choices for the people, which is against all individualistic views and the equation of individualism. After much analyzation, under Friedman and Machan’s individualism, what Sanofi Pasteur did, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       The headline of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness in yourself and others. Studies have shown that the reason behind this is, if happiness is valuable, there is no difference morally speaking between my happiness and yours. John Stuart Mill was a very important voice for utilitarianism in the 1800’s and he said, “We ought to bring about happiness and pleasure in all beings capable of feeling it (and do so impartially). Utilitarianism in the dengvaxia controversy can be confusing in a way but overall, it is very easy to evaluate. Starting with how it can be confusing, people could argue that Sanofi Pasteur was giving this vaccine out to maximize their happiness by making money and maximizing happiness in others because it was giving them a cure to an infection that affects 400 million people worldwide. What Sanofi did was not maximizing happiness in others. They were selfish and did not release important vaccination information to the public because it made them millions of dollars and made themselves happy. Clearly, fearing death is not a sign of happiness, it is a fear of possible anger and sadness, which is the complete opposite of what utilitarianism, says. What Sanofi Pasteur did with the dengvaxia vaccination maximized happiness in themselves but not in the Philippine people or anyone else, that was receiving the vaccination. A person who closely follows utilitarianism would easily say that was Sanofi Pasteur did, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       Virtues are defined as the characteristics that allow things to function properly. Virtues depend on the things functions and the things circumstances. The virtue theory follow guidelines similar to those of Kantianism but in virtue theory, a follower would focus more on the means and less on the ends. A virtue theorist cares about a person’s character and how their actions define them as a person. Sanofi broke many important virtues that can show how strong or poor a business’s character is. To begin, honesty and trustworthiness are two big virtues that Sanofi Pasteur broke. They were not honest in any sense about the harm and risks of being vaccinated with dengvaxia. The Philippine government and citizens are not going to trust the company anymore because they were dishonest about a product that went to the extent of killing fourteen innocent schoolchildren.

Moderation is another important virtue that Sanofi violated. Sanofi Pasteur clearly lacked moderation because they released dengvaxia before it was fully functional and safe to vaccinate people. They rushed the release of the vaccination because they knew they could make a lot of money on it if people did not know the risks. That is when the vice of selfishness comes into play in this case. Sanofi Pasteur was all about that the money and the release that they would not even set up a fund for the families affected by the vaccination because they wanted to keep all of the money they could. In addition, when the Philippine government asked for a full refund, they refused because they said that they would be admitting defeat on the vaccine that in fact worked for some people. Finally, it was selfish of them to begin to release a vaccine that had side effects that could cause death and they did not even inform anyone about it until people started to get sick form it. From the perspective of a virtue theorist, what Sanofi Pasteur did in the dengvaxia controversy, is, in fact, UNETHICAL.
       What Sanofi Pasteur did to the Philippine people was completely disrespectful and inhumane. Under all of our ethical evaluations, there was not on theory that had any evidence or viewpoint to pass the dengvaxia controversy as ethical. Sanofi has their personal reasons to think that what they did was completely fine but they know deep down that they were doing it for the money and not for the fact that it could make millions of people feel better in a country where at one time 90% of the whole country and be infected with dengue at once. Most other business that did a lot of research on this case and knew what Sanofi did, would also say that this case is beyond unethical because of the way Sanofi treated other people and it resulted in the death of fourteen innocent children that could had been easily prevented if Sanofi forgot about the money and acted ethical.
       Sanofi Pasteur’s current issue is that they are under fire for hiding certain information from the public about their dengvaxia vaccine and what effect it has on people who receive the vaccination even if they are not infected with dengue. Sanofi’s current mission statement is, “Our Mission. Protecting and improving human heath worldwide us our main mission. We have to service an active role by providing, innovative vaccines for the prevention and treatment of disease and by playing an active role in the immunization community to maximize vaccination.” After the dengvaxia controversy, Sanofi Pasteur should change their mission statement to, “Our Mission. Make all humans knowledgeable of our vaccination information. To be honest about the side effects of our vaccinations, to protect and to improve the health of all humans that depend on us. This mission statement differs from their current mission statement because in this new one, we acknowledge how important the knowledge of our customers are and how we want to be seen as honest while also protecting the health of many just like in the prior statement. Sanofi should also consider smke new core values such as:

1. Customer Safety – This would tie in well with their mission statement of protecting and improving the health of all humans. Customer safety should be Sanofi’s main core value after the controversy because they need to make sure all of their customers are safe when receiving their vaccinations. Otherwise, controversies like this will come up repeatedly, resulting in money loss and possibly resulting in a shut down.
2. Honesty – Sanofi Pasteur making honesty one of their core values would be the smartest thing they could do. It would make everyone in their business see that every day and remind them of what the dengvaxia controversy did to their customers and their company. Seeing honesty everyday would make the company want to release all information about their vaccines to their customers so they can make their own decisions and see the risks of putting the vaccination into their body.
3. Happiness– Happiness would be a great core value for Sanofi. It would make them see happiness next to honesty and it would remind them of the dengvaxia controversy every time. It would show that not only is their happiness important but the happiness of their customers is even more important. It could remind people of different reasons to be happy even if it is something outside of work but that overall their mission is to make other people happy by helping their health.

       The company as a whole, Sanofi Pasteur should hire new executive employees and rethink their marketing department. Hiring new executive employees will allow the company to start fresh with new employees that they can give ethical training to. Rethinking their marketing department means they need to start marketing their new mission statement, core values and new executives instead of their products. This will show the world that they are trying to change and become a improved company ethically.

       To this day, the dengvaxia controversy is still going on. Sanofi officials are currently in court and on trial for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The action plan will help Sanofi Pasteur get back onto the right track profitably and ethically while the people of the Philippines get justice through the punishment of the old Sanofi Pasteur officials. Many innocent lives were at risk because of Sanofi’s actions and it affected many families for a long time. Using Kantianism, Individualism, Utilitarianism and Virtue Theory, the case is UNETHICAL.

By: Casey Rutkey

Works Cited:

       Caceres, Marco. “Dengvaxia Vaccine May Lead to More Cases of Dengue.” The Vaccine Reaction, 2 Jan. 2018, thevaccinereaction.org/2018/01/dengvaxia-vaccine-may-lead-to-more-cases-of-dengue/. Daniel, Ellen, and Ellen Daniel. “Sanofi Sued over Alleged Vaccine Death in Philippines.” Pharmaceutical Technology, 6 Feb. 2018, www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/sanofi-sued-vaccine-death-philippines/. Grady, Denise, and Katie Thomas. “Drug Company Under Fire After Revealing Dengue Vaccine May Harm Some.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/17/health/sanofi-dengue-vaccine-philippines.html. Murdoch, Lindsay. “Controversial Dengue Vaccine in Spotlight after Death of Filipino Children.” The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 Jan. 2018, www.smh.com.au/world/controversial-dengue-vaccine-in-spotlight-after-death-of-filipino-children-20180106-h0edmv.html. Staff, Science X. “Philippines to Charge Sanofi Officials over Dengue Vaccination Deaths.” Medical Xpress - Medical Research Advances and Health News, Medical Xpress, 1 Mar. 2019, medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-philippines-sanofi-dengue-vaccination-deaths.html. “Vaccine Information Statements (VISs).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5 July 2017, www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html.

Defense Distributed and 3D Printed Guns (2018)

Defense Distributed, a nonprofit company based in Texas, sells blueprints online for people to 3d print their own firearms at home. The federal government has temporarily banned the company from selling these plans, despite computer code falling under First Amendment rights and the guns falling under Second Amendment rights. The main issue is that these firearms can be made by anyone with access to a 3d printer and because of that, they’re untraceable. On top of being untraceable, as they are made of plastic, they can evade most conventional security systems.

In August of 2018, the U.S. State Department issued a temporary restraining order to stop Defense Distributed from publishing the digital plans for 3D printed guns. The previous month, the company had challenged an interpretation of federal export law that had prohibited the “publication of plans for 3D guns” and the court reversed their stance. (Johnson, nbcnews.com) This ban came about after “eight states and the District of Columbia filed a joint lawsuit in federal court” in order to stop Defense Distributed from publishing the files. (Ou, Bloomberg.com) These events caused gun rights advocates to publish their own similar files, citing that they were protected under the First Amendment. (Johnson, NBCNews.com)

According to Elaine Ou, a writer for Bloomberg: “Depending on the 3D printer, the parts would take most of a day to complete. This is assuming the operator even has access to a precision printer.” and “Even if made using today's best 3D printing, the guns still aren’t very good. Any material pliable enough to feed through a printer will have trouble surviving the pressure and temperature required to propel a bullet at thousands of feet per second.” (Ou, Bloomberg.com) These two statements contradict the argument made by several states in the lawsuit against the U.S. Government: “A group of 19 U.S. states and the District of Columbia sued the U.S. government in July, arguing that publishing the blueprints would allow criminals easy access to weapons.” (Bellon, reuters.com)



According to Individualism, which focuses on the business and how it operates, Defense Distributed was acting morally because they were operating within the confines of the law at the time and acted in their own best interests in order to maximize profit. 

Under Utilitarianism, an ethical way of thinking that focuses on maximizing the happiness of conscious being, Defense Distributed failed as their operation caused a lot of controversy, and raised both legal problems as well as moral problems, such as what is covered under free speech and can exceptions be made? 

Defense Distributed ethically passed Kantianism, a theory that respects the choices of individuals without influencing them or manipulating them. The business is based on selling blueprints and there was a demand for those blueprints. The consumers understood what they were buying and Defense Distributed did not hide any information.

Virtue Theory, the last the four ethical theories discussed here, probes the character of business. If the business is engaging in morally sound practices, it is more likely to be considered virtuous. Defense Distributed would be considered courageous, due to challenging the court over what they believed to be their rights. It would also be honest and temperament, as they never hid anything and acted responsibly. The last virtue is justice, and despite being a company that hasn’t done anything wrong legally, they do enable the production of weapons that can be used for violence, which would go against this theory.

In order for the Defense Distributed to keep operating and producing the same product, they need to change how the guns are being made. In order to make the guns detectable, part of the gun that is necessary for operation should be made of a large enough piece of metal. This leads into the gun being traceable. That same metal part should have a serial number somewhere on it. These two solutions can be resolved by a collaboration with either the government or a government sanctioned company, in order to receive a traceable serial number on a part that is then sent to a buyer of the blueprints. This course of action would solve the problems that have been brought up of guns coming into unwanted hands and getting past security measures.




This article was based on the research paper "Defense Distributed, 3D Printers, and the Constitution (2018)" written by Garrett Franklin


References:

“About.” Defense Distributed, defdist.org/about/.

Bellon, Tina. “3-D Printed Gun Blueprints for Sale after U.S. Court Order, Group Says.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 28 Aug. 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns/3-d-printed-gun-blueprints-for-sale-after-u-s-court-order-group-says-idUSKCN1LD2AN.

Feldman, Noah. “The First Amendment Protects Plans for 3-D Guns.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 1 Aug. 2018, www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/3-d-printed-guns-are-protected-by-first-amendment.

Johnson, Alex. “Gun Rights Activists Post Plans for 3D Firearms after Judge's Order Blocking Them.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 1 Aug. 2018, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-rights-activists-post-plans-3d-firearms-after-judge-s-n896411.

Kruzman, Diana, and Tea Kvetenadze. “Factbox: What Are 3-D Printed Guns?” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 31 July 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-guns-factbox/factbox-what-are-3-d-printed-guns-idUSKBN1KL2KR.

Ou, Elaine. “Yes, Anyone Can Print a Gun at Home. But Not a Very Good One.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 1 Aug. 2018, www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/3d-printable-guns-are-possible-but-not-good-guns.

Young, Elise. “New Jersey Outlaws Untraceable ‘Ghost Guns,’ 3-D Printing of Firearms.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 8 Nov. 2018, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-08/n-j-outlaws-untraceable-ghost-guns-3-d-printing-of-firearms?cmpid==socialflow-twitter-politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=politics.

UFC's Unethical Domestic Violence 

Company Background

     

The UFC, Ultimate Fighting Championship, is an MMA sports promotion company that allows fighters from all over the world with different fighting styles compete for glory. The UFC was founded in America in 1993. The business was founded by Art Davie and Rorion Grace (mmawild). They place a series of fights that takes place around the world. Fighters would be put up against fighters that are suitable against each other to compete at different weights. Fighters will try to climb the ladder to challenge the best fighter of that weight division for the belt. There are a set of rules and regulations to provide a clean, fair match and to make it as safe as possible. Like boxing, they fight inside an octagon/cage instead of a ring and there are judges to provide the scores. The UFC is the most popular MMA promoting company that popularized mix-martial arts even though it was around for a long time.                                             Ethics Case Controversy

             The whole controversy all began because of Nurmagomedov and his crew decided to gang up on Lobov. According to a couple of videos, he brought his crew with him to confront Lobov and accused him of calling Nurmagomedov a pussy. He continued to deny that he called Nurmagomedov that. After the end of their conversation, he smacked Lobov in the head (MMA Focus). That’s what sparked McGregor’s hate towards Nurmagomedov and why he attacked the bus. Once he heard that his teammate was hurt by Nurmagomedov, he flew from Ireland to America in pursuit of vengeance. He brought his own group of people to search for Nurmagomedov. He went to in an area where all the buses are parked and looked for Nurmagomedov. Once McGregor spotted him, McGregor immediately grabbed 

whatever he can to try and hurt Nurmagomedov. He threw many objects at the bus, but what injured two fighters was when he threw a dolly at the bus. Security attempted to stop him from rampaging the bus to prevent any further injuries (rollingstone). Nurmagomedov left the bus to confront McGregor, but it was hard for him to get close to McGregor because there was security swarming around them. They both were furious and insulted each other. Nurmagomedov threatened to beat him up and responded angrily with, “I’d like to see you try.” This is what sparked the official fight between them inside the Octagon. Dana White, president of the UFC, decided to let them settle their matters by fighting it out. The world couldn’t wait to watch a fight between the two best lightweight division fighters. 

McGregor is known for trash talking during press conferences. 

Conor McGregor's bus attack

           This time, he went a bit too far with his trash talks because they were disrespectful. Trash talks are normal in the UFC, however, he insulted Nurmagomedov's family, religion, and country. There’s only so much a man could take, and McGregor went too far with his insults. Although trash talking is part of the sport, there are words and topics that shouldn’t be used as insults. He is known for getting into his opponent’s head and getting them angry with his insults, which is why he went so far with his trash talk. He brought alcohol to the press conference and offered a shot to Nurmagomedov when he was aware it was against his religion to drink; however, he persistently insists and pressured Nurmagomedov to have a shot of whisky (UFC). Someone’s family, religion, and country should not be talked bad about and should be respected. 

At the end of the fight, Nurmagomedov won by submission on the fourth round. After the fight, Dillon Danis was insulting him with very offensive language and racial slurs which made him jump over the cage (sportsjoe). He tried to kick Danis in the air but security was holding both of them back from fighting. McGregor tried to help Danis by trying to climb over the cage too, but he spots one of Nurmagomedov's cousin trying to join the fight as well. He punched Nurmagomedov's cousin to stop him from joining the fight. Two other of Nurmagomedov's teammates jumped into the cage to attack McGregor (complex). That wasn't the only brawl that happened; McGregor fans were fighting Nurmagomedov fans. 

Khabib Nurmagomedov jumps over cage

Individualism 

           Through the lens of Individualism, their goal is to maximize profit legally. Friedman’s theory approached prioritizing maximizing profits and is obligated to only do what’s best for the business. On the other hand, Machan’s theory is to do that but considering indirect goals that is not aimed at profiting and other goals. An Individualist would try their best to maximize profits, and the ideal way for the UFC to maximize profits while would want to keep McGregor and Nurmagomedov because of their popularity in the UFC. This wouldn’t be illegal since all the fighters who were involved in the controversy were dealt with lawfully. Conor McGregor was a two-time world champion who earned his two titles spontaneously. No one did what he did in UFC history, which makes him worth having because of his accomplishments. His accomplishments are what attracts fans to watch him fight. This would benefit the UFC because it would increase profits, but this would be considered unethical to the eyes of an Individualist because domestic violence is considered to be illegal.

Utilitarianism 

             Utilitarianism considers everyone’s wellbeing and happiness, so they would do their best to maximize everyone’s happiness. The main people’s happiness that the UFC must consider are the fans and the fighters. Since the company is all about promoting fights, they should give the fans a fight they want to see. Many fans want a fighter to fight a specific fighter because they want to see an intense fight between them—usually they want to see the best against the best. It makes the event more interesting and entertaining because no one knows who will come at the top and makes betting more fun. The UFC did this with UFC 229; a fight between McGregor and Nurmagomedov. When their fans are entertained, they are satisfied with the events. But they failed in keeping the environment safe and keeping the environment safe should be prioritized. Individualism would increase security and add stricter rules to ensure their consumers feel safe. When someone feels safe, they feel happier because they won’t have to be worried about getting hurt and violence adds on to more hatred.

Kantianism

        Kantianism primarily focuses on letting customers decide what they want to do, but they would provide the information that is necessary for their customers. This method gives consumers more flexibility on their decision. Kantianism, in terms of the UFC, would not fire any fighters because they want to focus on having more fighters available for events, so the fans could decide whether to watch or not. It is by good will to let all the fighters not get fired because it gives room for entertainment and that’s the purpose of the UFC. A big part of sports tradition is betting on who will win. Kantianism would have two of the best fighters to compete and everyone will bet money on whoever they think will come out victorious, but to help fans decide who to bet on they will provide information and accomplishment of the fighters. They would respect a fan’s decision on who to bet on. Kantianism would not fire McGregor or any fighter because it would limit their decision on who they want to watch and limit who they want to bet on.            

            Kantianism strictly follows the formula of motivation. The formula of motivation gives a general rule of thumb a business should follow: being honest with fans to gain their trust, being honest because they like their fans, and being honest because it’s right. The UFC gave out the accomplishments of both fighters and showcased the main fighters’ training session publicly on stage. This is what a Kantian would’ve done. The fans got to see with their own eyes on how the fighters prepare a fight. They interview fighters and have them answer questions that are frequently asked or fan questions. That’s as honest as you can get when informing consumers about a product because the fighters are like the UFC’s products since they are what sells the fights. And when they give their own opinions, it’s coming from their experience and their own knowledge. The formula of humanity states that a business should treat their consumers in a way they would treat humanity. It has exactly the same meaning as “treat others the way you want to be treated.” In a Kantianism perspective, they would be honest with their fans by keeping their promises. For example, when they promote an event, the company should try their best to make that event happen on that time and day.     

Virtues

            The four main virtues in business are: courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Courage is identified as being risk-taking and willing to follow an idea or action. Dana White followed this by allowing the fight to happen. It’s a crazy fight and anything could happen. McGregor also demonstrated courage by agreeing to fight when he hadn’t fought professionally in the UFC for two years. Honesty was demonstrated a lot by giving the correct information on the fighters. Although the fight between the two was a disappointment to many fans because the UFC promised a good fight between the two. The fight wasn’t as great as many fans were expecting it to be. It felt like McGregor didn’t keep his word when he said he’ll give a good performance because he was utterly dominated my Nurmagomedov. This also aligns with temperance as it is defined as “reasonable expectations and desires.” Most people expected both fighters to give an outstanding performance, which shouldn’t be expected because anything could happen in sports. The brawl after the fight was totally unexpected and did not give the company justice. Part of justice is to have a good idea and fair play, and letting this fight happen was not a good idea. There was no fair play in the main event of UFC 229, but there was bad behavior and horrible sportsmanship. 

Conclusion

          The controversy sparked because there was beef between the two fighters. If these two fighters were not allowed to fight, this controversy wouldn't have happened but the UFC would not get their profits. To prevent these circumstances from ever occurring again, I believe the UFC should create more rules and regulations for the fighters during press conferences and fights. They should also try to become stricter if regulations are broken such as longer suspensions, firing, or fining fighters.