Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory

Would you advance your career by omitting the truth of the data? In 2016, James Robert Lang pleaded guilty in the conspiracy to defraud the United States emissions tests in thousands Volkswagen’s diesel vehicles [1]. Lang received enormous pressure to produce a vehicle that would pass America’s strict emission test. Under the pressure, Liang and co-conspirators developed a defeat device that would meet the Clear Air Act standards by implementing a “software to recognize whether a vehicle was undergoing standard U.S. emissions testing on a dynamometer or being driven on the road under normal driving conditions.” In addition to lying initially, Lang continued to deceive the “EPA, CARB, and VW” even after regulatory agencies began to investigate
In Kantian ethics, the will controls our physical actions. He also emphasizes that the will can be trained. Adding on to the will, duty ethics is described “as an act has moral value when the will is perfectly aligned with duty” from the online videos. A maxim is a “subjective principle that governs action” which means it is generally a rule of conduct yet not absolute. For example, a maxim “is related to the individual, should not admit of any situational exceptions, is a subjective principle, and can be used to justify or govern one’s action.” A categorical imperative is the “moral criterion that corresponds to rational consistently” and is also known as “mere means.” To simplify, the categorical imperative provides parameters for when people are being used even in situations that seem morally correct. Kant’s moral theory claims everyone has the desire to follow a maxim or a sense of duty. Unlike Kant’s moral theory, utilitarianism belief is for everyone to adopt a set of rules for the best consequences for the majority of people. The key difference between Kant’s moral theory and rule utilitarianism is utilitarianism focuses on the consequences, long term and short term, while Kant’s theory focuses on the rational agent or the purity of the will. Each action in Kant’s point of view is aligned with duty while utilitarianism believes sacrifice of the few is the absolute
Kant does not clearly state what is considered treating another as means, but does say it is morally wrong in all situations. In the Volkswagen incident, I believe Liang did use people as mere means, unintentionally. He used coworkers and government officials to advance his career. The coworkers were a means because it was Liang’s responsibility to create a diesel engine to travel further on less fuel and pass the carbon admission test and the coworkers collaborated on the device to pass the regulation. By defying the government regulation, they were considered a mere means to release his design. Mere means is subjective and each person has motivation to reach their goal in life. To others, Kant’s mere means principle may not apply because the people were used directly. I believe Kant’s theory applies to a wide range of cases to some extent, especially when one benefits in any way. Benefits could include a title, happiness, or physical