T-Shirt Ethics
by Eric Swanson
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher that has had a great impact on the ethical decision making of midshipmen here at the Academy. Just recently, midshipmen had to make an ethical decision and they used Kant’s Categorical Imperatives to help them decide what was the best course of action to make. Kant believed that every action should be based upon rational thought. He believed that if one was to do an action that they must make sure they would be able to do the same action in a universal manner and that they were not using people as a means, but as ends. This rational decision-making was used by a few key midshipmen to decide how they would make and sell company t-shirts.
In a certain company, the Company Commander suggested that the 3/C should design, make, and sell company t-shirts on behalf of the company. The leadership of the class decided that this was a good project for them, so they decided that they would accept the tasking. These midshipmen also remembered that earlier that year the Wardroom Officer told them that the wardroom had plenty of money and they would be allowed to take some of the money and use it for a class outing. Well since that time, many of the ideas that they tried to come up with to spend the money on to support the morale of the class got disapproved. With this prior knowledge these key midshipmen figured that if they do all this work of planning, designing the t-shirts, setting up company elections for a vote on the design, coordinating the creation of the shirts, marketing the shirts, handling the money, and delivering the shirts, that they should get something out of all this hassle. So, they decided that they would add a few dollars onto the price of the t-shirt so that they would make a profit. Now, of course, this profit would not go to their personal benefit, but would benefit their class. The leaders would use this money to organize the class outing later on in the year using the money they made from the shirts. The leaders would be indirectly using the money already promised to them by the wardroom, without really getting the class outing approved so they could get the money officially.
The ethical problem in this situation is that no one knows of the profit on the shirts but these few key midshipmen. When midshipmen buy company t-shirts they have a trust within the sellers and the system that all of there money is going to the purchase of these shirts, that there will be no profit on the shirts. There is no concept of profit on company t-shirts to the midshipmen. Due to their naive nature it is easy to prey on them. These midshipmen want to use that naive nature to there advantage so that they can charge a few extra dollars for the shirts. Since everyone will be naïve to the fact, there will be no questions asked when the price of the shirts is given. However, is it right for these leaders to make a profit off what is supposed to be non-profit? Is it right for these leaders to not tell anyone in charge, nor be honest with the company that part of the money they will spend on these shirts will be used as a fund raising opportunity for the 3/C to go on an outing? Are the 3/C “owed” money from the wardroom to fund their class outing? Is it right for the 3/C to use this company t-shirt project to “get” money from the wardroom?
Kant has beliefs that can weigh in on the answering of these questions. Kant believes that men should be good internally to determine if an action is wrong or right. . “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes – because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone – that is, good in itself.” (140) Out of this goodness of the person comes duty. “Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.” (143) The reverence for the law will ensure that an action taken is morally good, “not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon,…in the principle of the will.” Kant believes that one’s intentions are where one can find if an action was morally right or wrong.
To find a person's intentions, Kant suggests using the Categorical Imperative. Kant suggests that people should act in a rational manner to determine their course of action. If this person is good wholly internally, they will be able to use their reason to decide the correct action, without self-interest. The Categorical Imperative is made up of three laws to use to determine if an action is ethically right. Kant suggests that first; one must look at their action and determine that they are always acting “in such a way that [they] can also will that [their] maxim should become a universal law.”(143) Basically, what this means is that the ethically good person should use their reason to decide if they could consistently use their action in all situations of similar type. This is important to Kant, because he sees the necessity of making sure that if one decided to do an action in one situation, would the same effect happen in a similar situation? If in all situations the effect is the same and is good, then it would pass the first Categorical Imperative to deciding the ethical right decision. However, if the action done in another situation did not turn out the same and especially for the worse, then one could say that that action has something inherently wrong in it. By doing an action that couldn’t be considered consistent and universal would be wrong according to Kant’s first law of the Categorical Imperative.
The second law of the Categorical Imperative is to not treat people as a means. Kant wanted to make sure that people “act in such a way that [they] always treat humanity,…never simply as a means,…”(148) This is important to Kant, because he could see in society how by treating people as a means to an end did not signify an ethical person. Kant suggests that the ethical person should look at the action they will take and make sure they are not using people or making others use people as a means. If that person found that they were using people as a means, they should not continue in that action. By rational looking at their action in this light would fulfill the requirements of the second law of the Categorical Imperative.
The last law of the Categorical Imperative is to make sure everyone is treated as an end. Kant believes that in conclusion of not treating people as a means, that everyone should people as ends. He does understand that a “kingdom of ends” (149), whereby everyone treats everyone else as an end is an ideal. However, if society could move towards the end, it would finally have dignity towards humanity.
When the Categorical Imperative is used towards this dilemma of the company t-shirts, it is found that the decision that these leaders has made is the wrong decision. By not being completely honest to the chain of command or the company in general breaks the first part of the Categorical Imperative. This action breaks this law, because one cannot choose to do this action in other situations. In every other situation one needs to let the chain of command know what is going on within the company. Also, when one is selling to people it is understood that the parties involved needs to be honest with each other. Sure there is an understanding of “buyer beware”, but consumers do have a right to some protection from scams and frauds. At another glance of this action in comparison to the Categorical Imperative, it is found that it breaks the second and third law as well. Again, by not being honest to the wardroom officer or the company, these leaders are using them to achieve their own objective of gaining money for a class trip. Though the end might be a good for the class, according to Kant, since the leaders had to use or manipulate people to achieve their goal it is not the right thing to do. This action of making a profit off the company without telling the company or getting the chain of command’s approval is wrong if measured against Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
However, there is a simple solution to the problem. Basically, it is what parents have been telling kids for years and that is to tell the truth. If the 3/C leaders told the company what is going on and tried to get the approval of the chain of command then no questions will need to be answered about their conduct over the selling of the company t-shirts later. Sure, they still might not get the approval for the profit making or the approval for the money for the class outing later on, but the leaders need to understand to trust the chain of command. The leaders will not always understand why the chain of command does something. However, most times the chain of command is privy to information that the leaders of the class are not, which might affect the final decision. If the leaders of the 3/C decide to be honest this would satisfy all the measures of an ethical action according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Being honest can easily be used in a universal and consistent manner in all situations and it will have the same good outcome each time. Also, by being honest, no one will be using anyone’s ignorance or naive nature in a situation to use them as a means instead of as an end.
In the end, the Categorical Imperative should be used to identify ethical actions. If an action can be used in a consistent, universal manner without using anyone as a means, but treating everyone as an end, then that action should be taken with the confidence that it is an ethical action. Selling company t-shirts in an honest, approved manner would be the best way to make sure that the actions of selling shirts is done in an ethical manner.
Bibliography
Kant, Immanuel. “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.” Ethics for Military
Leaders. Ed. George R. Lucas. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 1998. 139 –
152.
|
|
|||||||||
| Who is Eric? | Economics | English | Ethics | History | Interests | Leadership | Psychology | Politics | Links |
Date this page was last updated: 12/06/2002