1.

Introduction

In today's global economy, businesses are faced with increasing pressures to

operate in a socially responsible and ethical manner. Facebook and Amazon are

currently two of the most powerful companies in the world, having changed

fundamentally the way people communicate, shop, and interact with eachother. Both

companies faced significant scrutiny over their unethical business practices in recent

years. This essay, will critically evaluate the morality of each company and conclude

on which one is worse with the use of two ethical theories; Utilitarianism and Kantian

Ethics.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which focuses on the outcomes of actions

and supports that the correct choice is whatever makes the world the best in the

future (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003). Utilitarianism judges the consequences of actions

using the greatest happiness principle; “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest

number that is the measure of right or wrong” (Bentham, 1776).

Kantian ethics is a deontological, non-consequentialist theory which emphasize the

moral duty and obligation of individuals (Crane, et al 2019). Deontology is defined as

an ethical approach focusing on the intention behind actions, not the consequences

or emotions behind them (Barrow and Khandhar, 2022). Kant introduced a rule of

conduct called the categorical imperative (CI), which is described as the fundamental

principle of moral duties which individuals must follow (Johnson and Cureton, 2022).
 2. Facebook – Hate Speech & Misinformation:

2.1 Introduction to Facebook:

Facebook, recently rebranded to ‘Meta’, is one of the most valuable companies in

the world, ranked at Number 27 on Fortunes 500 (Fortune, 2023).

Facebook has been involved in many scandals over the years which have put their

moral compass in questioning by the public. The issue which will be ethically

analysed is Facebook’s role in incitement of violence against the Rohingya Muslim

minority in Myanmar which was facilitated by the false information and hate speech

which Facebook allowed to spread on their site (Miles, 2018).

2.2 Facebook - Utilitarianism:

To assess the morality of Facebook’s actions from a utilitarian perspective, the

consequences of their actions need to be assessed to determine whether they are

morally acceptable. Under the utilitarianism theory an action is considered moral if

the positives derived from it outweighs the negatives for the greatest number of

people (Driver, 2014). Facebook’s actions in the case of the Rohingya genocide,

have negatively affected more 740,000 Rohingya who had to flee out of the country,

and thousands more killed during the military crackdown (McCue and Lisbon, 2021).

The platform amplified the reach of hate speech and facilitated the formation of

extremist groups, exacerbating the conflict and contributing to a worsening

humanitarian crisis. Outside of the Rohingya genocide, Facebook plays part in the

spread of hatred and misinformation in other parts of the world, especially

developing countries, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh (Warner, 2023). An internal

report leaked by whistleblower Francis Haugen, showed that Facebook is aware of

the spread of hate speech and the incitement of violence on their platform but are

not doing enough to stop as a way to maximise their profits (Bateman, 2021).

Haugen stated that "Facebook has realised that if they change the algorithm to be

safer, people will spend less time on the site, they'll click on less ads, they'll make

less money” (Haugen in Bateman, 2021).

On the contrary, by not limiting harmful content on their site - which increases

emotional feelings and reactions from users - they increase their user engagement

which increases their financial gains, and consequently the happiness of their

investors and management. (Bateman, 2021). Advertising revenue is Facebook’s

main revenue stream (Isaac, 2021) and according to a study from the Global

Disinformation Index, disinformation and content which causes outrage to users

increases user engagement and consequently ad revenues for the company

(Melford and Fagan, 2019). Despite this, after Facebook’s numerous controversies,

they are still receiving scrutiny from the public and the media which caused more

than one thousand companies to boycott Facebook in an effort to force Facebook

into implementing change by decreasing their revenues (Hsu and Lutz, 2020). If

Facebook’s actions doesn’t improve in line with the public’s demands more

boycotting could follow which could significantly damage their future financial

performance and the happiness of their management and investors.

Under the greatest happiness principle, Facebook’s actions with regards to the

spread of hate speech and misinformation on their site, has failed to increase the

pleasure of their investors and instead has increased the pain for thousands of

communities and people around the world which have been negatively impacted by

all that is happening on the site (Driver, 2014). The harm caused to these

communities as a whole far outweighs any potential benefits to the company and
their shareholders. Facebook had a responsibility to prevent the spread of hate

speech and misinformation on its platform, especially where it could lead to violence

and genocide.

2.3 Facebook - Kantian Ethics:

The first formula of the CI is described as the ‘Universal Law of Nature’ and it states

that people should act according to moral principles so that it can become a

universal law without any conflict (Johnson and Cureton, 2022). The first step is the

formulation of the maxim; “Facebook does not prevent the spread of hate speech

and misinformation on their site which causes harm to the public, for their own gain”.

This maxim then has to be universalised into a law of nature; “All big media

companies do not prevent the spread of hate speech and misinformation on their

sites which causes harm to the public, for their own gain”. This universal maxim is

then applied to a perturbed social world (PSW) where everyone is aware that this

maxim applies and is socially acceptable (Johnson and Cureton, 2022). The

‘contradiction in conception’ test must then be applied to establish whether the

maxim could rationally be applied to the PSW (Johnson and Cureton, 2022). As

harmful content is currently being spread though other social media sites apart from

Facebook the maxim is not contradicted and passes the first test. Following this the

‘contradiction in will’ test has to be applied to establish whether the PSW is one

where individuals would willingly want to be a part of (Johnson and Cureton, 2022).

Harmful media is an issue acknowledged by governments and world organisations

who are trying to resolve it, as mentioned by the UN Secretary General, Antonio

Guterres (2021), “Social media provides a global megaphone for hate” and steps
have to be taken to keep social media users a safer and better informed (United

Nations, 2022). The UK government has also proposed a new ‘Online Safety Bill’,

made to protect users of social media sites by removing illegal and harmful content

(GOV.UK, 2022). As there are currently steps being taken to combat the spread of

such content on social media, the universal maxim does not pass the ‘contradiction

in will’ test, as individuals would not want to be part of the PSW. Facebook has an

imperfect duty to limit the spread of harmful content online, and their actions could

not be universalized without contradiction (Johnson and Cureton, 2022). Under

Kanian ethics Facebook’s actions are viewed as immoral.

Kant’s ethics have been criticised by philosopher Schopenhauer, who supported that

“morality can arise only from the feeling of compassion” (Guyer, 2012) and that

Kant’s CI is rooted in egoism since Kant dismisses emotions when determining the

morality of an action (Guyer, 2012). Schopenhauer claims that compassion is the

basis of morality and is a fundamental incentive in concluding whether an action is

moral (Madigan, 2019). If Schopenhauer’s critique is taken into account, Kant’s CI

cannot be used to evaluate Facebook’s morality. However, many academics have

disputed Schopenhauer’s critique, Tsanoff (1910) describes it as ‘one-sided’ and

Koontz (1993) argues that “[Schopenhauer] fails to prove his thesis that compassion

yields a sufficient criterion of moral action”. Therefore, as Schopenhauer’s criticisms

are still a topic of discussion, it is appropriate to use Kant’s CI to evaluate

Facebook’s actions as immoral.

 3. Amazon – Tax Avoidance:

3.1 Introduction to Amazon:

Amazon is currently the most valuable brand in the world with an estimated brand

value of $299bn (Statista, 2023).

Amazon has been criticised for using aggressive tax avoidance to lower their tax

liabilities. Tax avoidance involves using loopholes in tax systems to gain a tax

advantage, which is entirely legal (Carlile, 2018). In the past decade Amazon has

paid just $3.4bn in taxes despite having revenues of $961bn (The Silicon Six, 2019).

Amazon avoids tax through stock-based compensation reliefs (Yglesias, 2019) and

carried forward losses that can be offset against future tax (Neate, 2021).

3.2 Amazon - Utilitarianism:

Using this the utilitarian ethical framework to analyse the morality of Amazon’s tax

avoidance practices, the impact of their actions on various stakeholders has to be

considered to determine whether their actions have contributed to maximising the

happiness for the greatest number of these stakeholders (Driver, 2014). Amazon's

tax avoidance practices could be seen as unethical as they potentially harm the

government and society by depriving them of much-needed tax revenue. In 2017 it

was estimated that tax avoidance caused losses of up to $500 billion globally, with

the biggest effect being noted in low-income and developing countries such as

Argentina and Chad (Turner, 2017). In the UK, HMRC estimated £1.5 billion in losses

resulting from tax avoidance in 2019/20 (Seely, 2020), and according to the Ethical

Consumer (2022), Amazon’s tax avoidance specifically has cost the UK government

an estimated £500 million in 2021. Tax revenue is used to fund public services, such
as education, healthcare, defence and welfare, which benefit all members of society

(UK Parliament, 2022). By avoiding taxes, companies are contributing to a lack of

funding for these essential services, which could harm the well-being of the wider

society. Additionally, the tax burden of the money lost from corporations partaking in

tax avoidance schemes could be shifted to individuals who could have to pay higher

amounts of tax. This decreases the happiness of the public as it can result in poverty

and an lower standard of life.

Despite the aforementioned, tax avoidance can be beneficial to Amazon's

management and investors as it reduces the company’s costs and increases their

profits. The money that would otherwise be paid to the government can be

reinvested back into the company and aid in the growth and expansion of the

business. Amazon can also gain a competitive advantage over other companies

through the money saved by offering better deals and lower prices to consumers

than its competitors. The company being more profitable could benefit employees

with an increased job security and higher wages, as the company's profitability could

lead to better working conditions. However, with the increase of social awareness,

the public demands that companies take responsibility for their unethical behaviour.

This means negative publicity and boycotting is expected to happen when practices

such as tax avoidance are not appropriately addressed by the company.

Organisations such as the Ethical Consumer have been promoting the boycotting of

Amazon for years, and a big anti-tax avoidance protest could cause the company’s

revenues to plummet as seen in the case of Starbucks, where their sales dropped for

the first time in the UK after boycotts over their tax avoidance (Bergin, 2014).

Using utilitarianism, tax avoidance does not contribute in maximising the pleasure of

Amazon’s stakeholders, as the negative impacts outweigh the positives for a greater
amount of people. Amazon’s actions are considered immoral under utilitarianism and

they have a responsibility to avoid partaking in tax avoidance schemes (Driver,

2014).

3.3 Amazon - Kantian Ethics

The ‘Universal Law of Nature’ formula states that people should “act only in

accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it

become a universal law”(Johnson and Cureton, 2022). Firstly, the maxim needs to

be formulated: “Amazon minimises their payable tax through tax avoidance schemes

to maximise their profits”. This maxim then has to be universalised into a law of

nature and therefore: “All big multinational companies minimise their payable tax

through tax avoidance schemes to maximise their profit”. This universal maxim is

applied to a PSW where everyone is aware that this maxim applies and is socially

acceptable (Johnson and Cureton, 2022). The universal maxim passes both the

‘contradiction in conception’ test and the ‘contradiction in will’ test as tax avoidance is

already written in the letter of the law, and is therefore legally acceptable, and

commonly used by other large multinational companies as it is in their investors and

managements’ best interest. As mentioned by Google’s former CEO, companies

utilise the incentives offered by the government and “play by the rules set by

politicians" (Eric Schmidt in Telegraph, 2012). The maxim passes both tests,

therefore using Kantian ethics Amazon’s use of tax avoidance for their own gain is

morally acceptable (Johnson and Cureton, 2022).

The second formula of Kant’s CI is the ‘Humanity Formula’ and it proposes that

individuals should always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and not as a
mere mean, implying that they individuals should not use others for their own

personal gain (Bowie, 2002). This derives from Kant’s belief that people are an “end

in themselves” (Johnson and Cureton, 2022). Amazon cannot be blamed for limiting

governments resources, as they are not the only tax avoidant company and many

other factors play a part in this. With this argument Amazon is not using others as a

means to an end for their own benefit, and under the Humanity Formula their actions

are not immoral.

Kant’s ethics have been criticised by John Stuart Mill who argues that Kant’s CI is a

form of utilitarianism since Kant actually looks at the consequences of actions, and

that “his system is impotent” (John Stuart Mill in Lawrence, n.d.). Academics such as

Lawrence (n.d) disagree with Mill’s interpretation of Kant’s ethics, arguing that Kant

does not take the consequences of the maxims into account but rather the duty and

good will which are used to judge whether these maxims would be morally

acceptable. The criticisms around Kant’s CI are not enough to support that his theory

is unreliable and therefore the results of the CI can be considered in the evaluation

of Amazon’s morality.
 4. Conclusion (156)

To conclude, both Facebook and Amazon have had negative impacts on society but

have also positively affected some of their stakeholders. Facebook’s enabling of hate

speech and misinformation on their site is deemed immoral from both a utilitarian

and a Kantian perspective as it has resulted in minimising the pleasure of the

greatest number of people and their actions could not be made into a universal law.

Amazon’s tax avoidance is considered immoral under utilitarianism as it contributes

in decreasing the happiness of the largest amount people. However, under Kant’s CI

their actions are deemed as morally acceptable as tax avoidance is written in the

letter of the law. Because of this, itcan be argued that Facebook is more unethical

than Amazon as it also fails Kant’s theory. Additionally, under utilitarianism,

Facebook’s actions had a larger negative impact to a greater number of people

around the world in comparison to the impact of Amazon’s tax avoidance.