CASE3

docx

School

Seneca College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

BAN 120

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BailiffComputer14693

Case: Should we #deleteuber? General concerns raised about Uber:  Employment Practices : Uber classifies its drivers as independent contractors, denying them benefits such as overtime, sick leave, health insurance, and retirement plans. Legislative attempts, such as a classification law in California and a driver-specific minimum wage law in New York, have been made, but there are concerns about potential negative impacts on part-time drivers.  Driver Wages : Uber has a history of lowering fares in response to decreases in rider demand, ostensibly to increase demand, but resulting in decreased income for drivers. Some drivers resort to "long hauling" to offset the decrease in earnings, i.e., taking longer routes to cover more miles than the most direct route.  Regulatory Approach : Uber has been criticized for its "ask for forgiveness instead of permission" approach to regulations. Exploiting regulatory loopholes and moving faster than regulators can respond has led to its growth but also resulted in challenges, such as the non- renewal of its license in London in 2017.  Traffic and Congestion : While Uber claims that ride-sharing services reduce congestion, studies suggest that the

proliferation of ride-sharing services has increased overall traffic in large cities.  The growth of ride-sharing services has led to more overall miles driven, contradicting the expected reduction in driving miles from personal cars. These concerns raise ethical, economic, and societal questions about Uber's impact on its drivers, the transportation industry, and the communities it operates in. It prompts a discussion about the balance between the benefits Uber provides and the potential negative consequences associated with its business model and practices. Arguments for deleting Uber:  Personal Boycott is Permissible : The decision to boycott Uber on a personal level is considered morally permissible. Individuals are not morally obligated to use Uber or any other service, and therefore, no justification is required for choosing not to use it.  Organized Boycotts Have Different Moral Status : Unlike personal boycotts, organized boycotts do not have a default moral status. While some organized boycotts are clearly permissible, others might be morally wrong. The focus shifts from personal choice to the morality of initiating or joining an organized boycott.

 Complexity in Moral Evaluation : The argument acknowledges that there are aspects of Uber's operations, leadership, and workforce that may raise moral concerns. However, it emphasizes that merely recognizing these concerns doesn't lead directly to the conclusion that Uber should be boycotted.  Drawing Parallel with Moral Vegetarianism : This parallel is drawn because both debates involve the production of a good or service that entails significant harms, and a moral obligation to refrain from using the product or service is not automatically inferred.  Need for Constructing an Argument : Rather than making a direct inference from the perceived wrongdoings of Uber to the necessity of a boycott, the argument proposes the need to construct a well-reasoned argument. Drawing on philosophical work on moral vegetarianism is seen to develop a structured and nuanced perspective on the permissibility or obligatoriness of an Uber boycott. It suggests that while personal boycotts are a matter of individual choice, organized boycotts require a more complex evaluation, and drawing on philosophical parallels can provide a framework for constructing a reasoned argument for or against boycotting Uber. Drawing a parallel between #deleteUber and moral vegetarianism:  Moral Vegetarian Argument Structure : The moral vegetarian argument asserts that

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

consuming meat is morally wrong, typically supported in two stages: first, by highlighting features of meat production causing harm, and second, by connecting meat consumption to the wrongdoing in production through the notion of participation.  Application to Uber : To apply a similar argument to Uber, the first stage involves demonstrating that the way Uber operates is morally wrong. This can be supported by pointing to specific complaints such as sexual misconduct, endangering drivers, and endangering riders.  Establishing Wrongness in Uber's Operations: The claim is made that Uber's operation is morally wrong based on the identified types of moral wrongdoing. Acknowledgment is given to cases where Uber may not admit involvement, but the argument asserts that if allegations are true, Uber's operation is morally wrong.  Participation in Wrongdoing : In the second stage, the argument asserts that using Uber is participating in the wrongdoing inherent in its operations. It claims that participation in the production of wrongdoing is morally prohibited.  Conclusion and Personal Boycott : Combining both stages, the argument concludes that if the way Uber operates is wrong and it is wrong to participate in wrongdoing, then using Uber is wrong. Consequently, individuals should engage in a personal boycott of Uber.

 Challenges and Objections : The argument acknowledges potential objections, particularly regarding the definition and scope of "participation." It recognizes that further clarification is needed to address these objections and fully defend the argument.  Open Question for Organized Boycott : While the argument presents a case for a personal boycott, it remains an open question whether the participatory argument can justify an organized boycott of Uber. Additional considerations beyond personal choices would need to be examined to justify collective actions against the company. Attempting to justify an organized boycott of Uber with Moral justification:  Key Question : Morality of Organized Boycotts: The central question regarding an organized boycott of Uber is whether it is morally permissible. Unlike personal boycotts, the moral status of organized boycotts requires deeper examination.  Moral Justification for Boycotts : Recent work on the moral status of boycotts suggests that organized boycotts may not always be morally permissible. Linda Radzik emphasizes that boycotts can function as moral protest, avoidance of complicity, social punishment, or social coercion, and their justification depends on the category and applicable norms.

 Coercive Aspect of Boycotting : Tomhave and Vopat focus on the coercive aspect of boycotting, viewing it as an organized use of coercive force. They argue that the justification for coercive force depends on the nature of the action, practice, or policy being boycotted.  Justification Criteria : The moral justification of a boycott depends on factors including whether the targeted action causes harm and whether the boycott itself produces more harm than good. According to Tomhave and Vopat, an organized boycott is morally justified "if and only if the boycott produces, on balance, more good than harm."  Censorious Boycotts : Censorious boycotts, aimed at silencing viewpoints, are typically considered morally unjustified. Silencing a viewpoint in the marketplace of ideas is seen as harmful to a diverse society. The criterion for moral justification is whether the boycott produces goods that outweigh the harm done by restricting the marketplace of ideas.  Application to Hypothetical Examples : The distinction between boycotting to prevent harm and boycotting to silence expression is applied to hypothetical examples. An organized boycott against a coffee company exploiting workers is more likely to be morally justified, while a boycott against a CEO expressing an unpopular political

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

opinion is likely morally impermissible, as it aims to silence a viewpoint.  Complexity in Distinction : Acknowledgment is made that the distinction between expressing a viewpoint and causing harm is not always clear- cut. Offensive views can cause harm, and in extreme cases, expressing a view may contribute to systemic injustice. Despite this complexity, the initial distinction provides a useful starting point when evaluating the moral status of a proposed boycott, such as in the case of Uber. Application of the moral justification framework to the #deleteUber boycott:  Central Question : The application of the distinction to the #deleteUber boycott involves evaluating whether the boycott is expected to bring about on balance, more good than harm.  Reasons Behind the Boycott : The justification of the boycott often depends on the reasons behind it. If the primary purpose is to suppress a viewpoint, such as when boycotting Uber due to Travis Kalanick joining President Trump’s economic advisory council, the boycott may not be justified.  Boycott to Prevent Wrongdoing : A boycott initiated to pressure Uber to address issues like sexual harassment and other types of wrongdoing has a better chance of being morally justified, as it aims to bring about positive change.

 #deleteUber Boycott Context : The #deleteUber boycott, prompted by Uber's perceived lack of response to Trump's executive order on travel restrictions, can be viewed in two ways: (a)Silencing Expression : If the boycott is seen as suppressing Uber's perceived support for Trump, it may not be morally justified. (b)Preventing Harm : If the boycott aims to address the harm caused by the executive order and seeks policy change, it could be considered morally justified.  Complicated Questions : Determining the moral justification of the #deleteUber boycott requires answering complex questions about the effects of the boycott, especially considering the degrees of separation between Uber and the policies the boycotters want to change.  Comparative Claim : Making a comparative claim, boycotting Uber to force policy changes within the company itself is deemed more likely to be morally justified than boycotting for the purpose of influencing policy changes within a presidential administration. Decision Points:  Personal Boycott of Uber: Consider whether you believe there is a moral obligation to refrain from using Uber based on the information presented. Reflect on the impact and business practices of Uber to inform your decision. Evaluate whether the identified issues, such as

sexual misconduct and endangerment, create a moral obligation to engage in a personal boycott.  Conditions for Change: Consider what factors or changes in Uber's operations or policies would lead you to change your stance. Reflect on the criteria that would make you reconsider the moral obligation to refrain from using Uber personally.  Organized Boycott Evaluation: Assess the usefulness of the "more good than harm" criterion when evaluating organized boycotts. Determine whether this criterion provides a helpful framework for justifying collective actions against Uber.  Moral Justification for Organized Boycott: Consider whether, beyond personal choices, an organized boycott of Uber is morally justified. Reflect on the reasons behind organized boycotts and whether they align with the goal of bringing about positive change or preventing harm. In summary, the decision points involve assessing personal moral obligations regarding Uber use, identifying conditions for changing one's stance, evaluating the utility of the "more good than harm" criterion in organized boycotts, and considering the moral justification for collective actions against Uber. ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Q1. One element of the original #deleteUber controversy was the Uber decision to turn off surge pricing during the taxi worker strike. In your view, was their decision to turn off surge pricing a good thing (because it showed that they were not trying to profit

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

from the ban) or a bad thing (because they were making it less costly for riders to sidestep the ban)? More generally, surge pricing is unpopular despite its ability to increase the supply of drivers and allocate available rides to those who are willing to pay more for them. Can you think of ways to alter the surge pricing mechanism (or the way it is branded) to reduce the animosity toward it? A1 . Regarding Uber's decision to turn off surge pricing during the taxi worker strike, the evaluation of whether it was a good or bad move depends on one's perspective. On one hand, turning off surge pricing may be seen as a positive step, indicating that Uber was not attempting to profit from the strike. On the other hand, it could be perceived negatively as it potentially made it less costly for riders to bypass the strike, undermining the solidarity of the protest. In addressing the broader issue of surge pricing, which is generally unpopular despite its functionality in increasing driver supply, potential solutions might involve altering the mechanism or rebranding it to reduce animosity. This could include providing clearer explanations to users about the rationale behind surge pricing or implementing more transparent and predictable pricing models. Q2. Does the participatory argument for a personal boycott of Uber succeed in its attempt to connect the wrongness of (some of) the Uber operations to the alleged wrongness of using Uber? If not, why not? What do you take to be the strongest argument for a personal boycott of Uber?

A2. The participatory argument for a personal boycott of Uber may face challenges in successfully connecting the alleged wrongness of Uber's operations to the wrongness of using the service. If the argument falls short, it could be due to the complex nature of the issues raised against Uber, and different individuals may weigh these concerns differently. The strongest argument for a personal boycott of Uber might be grounded in specific instances of moral wrongdoing by the company, such as cases of sexual misconduct or endangering drivers and riders. These egregious behaviors could form the basis for a compelling moral case against supporting Uber. Q3. Consider the proposed organized boycott of Uber. Do you think the distinction between a boycott that is intended to silence the expression of a viewpoint and a boycott that is intended to prevent harm is a helpful distinction? Which, if any, of the problematic behaviors listed above (in the “Complaints About Uber” section) constitutes the type of harm that would justify a boycott? A3 . Considering the proposed organized boycott of Uber, the distinction between silencing expression and preventing harm is crucial. The effectiveness of the boycott's justification depends on whether it intends to suppress a particular viewpoint or seeks to address and prevent actual harm caused by Uber's actions. Within the listed problematic behaviors, instances such as sexual misconduct, endangering drivers, and endangering riders could be seen as constituting the

type of harm that justifies a boycott, as they involve violations of individuals' safety and well-being. Q4. Much of the recent controversy surrounding Uber has focused on the California Assembly Bill 5, which was passed in September of 2019. The bill mandates that companies designate their workers as employees rather than contractors if their work is part of the regular business of the company or if the company controls how they perform their tasks (Conger & Scheiber, 2019a). Considering this legislation, consider first a moral question: Does Uber (together with similar companies in the gig economy) have some sort of moral obligation to classify their drivers as employees rather than contractors? Why or why not? Suppose the answer to the moral question is “Yes.” Is this California law a good one? Can you think of any adverse effects it might have? A4 . Concerning the California Assembly Bill 5 and the gig economy, the moral question of whether Uber has a moral obligation to classify its drivers as employees is complex. Arguments can be made both for and against such an obligation. If the answer is "Yes," and Uber does have a moral obligation, the California law may be viewed positively as it seeks to ensure fair treatment and benefits for workers. However, potential adverse effects could include increased costs for companies, potentially leading to changes in business models, increased prices for consumers, or even job losses if companies respond by reducing their workforce to maintain profitability. The overall assessment of the law would depend on weighing these considerations.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Q5 . As noted above, Uber has been criticized for its approach to regulation. Instead of working with regulators to ensure that their drivers have the right permits and licensing, Uber has typically used aggressive discounting and marketing tactics to build up enough rider support to put pressure on regulators to allow Uber to keep operating. This strategy has produced rapid growth, but it has also backfired in places such as London. Shifting the focus to the regulatory side of the equation, many have argued that some regulations, such as taxicab medallion laws, are bad for the economy because they inflate prices by artificially limiting supply and making it hard for innovations to enter the market. so, the Uber approach has arguably been too aggressive, but the regulations they are facing are arguably too restrictive. Considering this tension, what, if anything, do you think Uber should have done differently in their approach to regulation? A5 . Uber's Approach to Regulation: Uber's way of dealing with rules and regulations has been criticized. Instead of working together with regulators to make sure they have the right permits and licenses, Uber has been using aggressive tactics like offering discounts and marketing to get public support and put pressure on regulators. This has helped Uber grow quickly, but it has also caused issues, like in London where there has been pushback. On the other hand, some argue that certain laws, like those governing taxi medallions, make prices higher

and stop new ideas in the market. To handle this tension between Uber's aggressive style and the regulations, a more balanced approach could have been helpful. Uber could have talked with regulators in a positive way, highlighting the good things about their service and working actively to address any concerns. This cooperative approach might have built a better relationship with authorities and eased some of the challenges caused by their aggressive stance. Q6 . Uber is part of, and in many ways representative of, the sharing economy, 24 which features more part-time work from providers and less ownership from consumers. This focus on part-time work has turned some jobs into something that resembles more of a freelancing gig, which is why the sharing economy is sometimes referred to as the gig economy. An increasing number of businesses are adopting a gig model, which raises interesting economic and moral questions. In which industries or circumstances are gig models better than the alternative. (Are they better for everybody, or better on balance because the benefits outweigh the shortcomings or harms?) If we want to maximize both the health of an overall economy and the well-being of the individuals who participate in it, what proportion of that overall economy should include gig work. A6 . Gig Economy and Maximizing Well-being: Uber represents the sharing economy, characterized by part-time work and less ownership, contributing to the rise of the gig economy. The gig model has been adopted by various businesses, prompting economic

and moral questions about its suitability. The effectiveness of gig models depends on the industry or circumstances, and they might be better than alternatives in specific contexts. Assessing whether they are better for everyone or better on balance requires considering if the benefits outweigh the shortcomings or harms. To maximize the health of the overall economy and individuals' well-being, a thoughtful balance is needed. Determining the proportion of gig work in the overall economy should involve careful consideration of societal needs, worker protections, and ensuring fair and stable income for those participating in gig roles. Striking this balance requires thoughtful policies that prioritize both economic vitality and the welfare of gig workers.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

CASE3

Related Documents