CASE3.docx | bartleby

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

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