Post 4: Corporate Malfeasance

Case Brief

In the articles, IBM’s culpability in helping Hitler’s Holocaust is attributed to the fact that the German branch, IBM Germany, was working with full knowledge of its New York headquarters under CEO Thomas J Watson. Harrison Chauncey and Werner Lier, top officials and Watson’s personal representatives, were also seen constantly in Berlin and Geneva overseeing the activities and making sure to reap the profits for the NY parent company. It is known that the reasons for having access to all the names of Jewish people living in Germany was from census data from IBM Germany using the Hollerith tabulating machine. Additionally, the efficiency of the trains for its part in the Final Solution was also helped along by IBM’s Hollerith D-11 card sorting machine. Moreover, IBM Germany custom-designed and manufactured the specialized applications for the IBM Hollerith machines. It used special paper only manufactured by IBM, and the machines were serviced regularly by IBM technicians even at concentration camps. Chairman and CEO Watson was also known to have visited Hitler and dined with him and supported a school Europe-wide to train Hollerith technicians to implement and maintain the machines. Watson also received an honorary medal that he had since returned, but documents found by Black in 2012 reveal that the NY office continued to manage the German subsidiary’s assets afterward.

Today, the stakeholders include Edwin Black and those who are descendents of survivors of the Holocaust who wish for IBM to formally acknowledge and apologize, IBM who continues to maintain that they were not directly responsible (Dehomag was the subsidiary and it came under Nazi control) and find the acts committed during the time atrocious, and that most surviving documentation (not that there was much left) has been already made public and stored at New York University and Hohenheim University, and other American companies like GM and Ford who also continued to pursue business interests in Germany at the cost of others’ lives. In fact, from Smith’s article, “This Is the Hidden Nazi History of IBM — And the Man Who Tried to Expose It”, “Likewise, archived documents from Ford and GM showed that American managers oversaw military manufacturing at German plants while denying calls from the Roosevelt administration asking them to set up American plants”. However, in a marked difference from IBM, while in the past they did try to deny having played a large role, some companies have since apologized and made their records public, while IBM refused to speak on the matter with author Edwin Black and refused access to any records it might have. Other stakeholders include those who are not linked historically or personally but who see the implications in this day and age of Facebook and Google if companies are able to make decisions to sell personal information data based on profit and avoid the consequences or remain complicit without any repercussions. The Epicurean ethical framework would not agree with IBM’s choice to profit from working with the Hitler regime because it argues that everyone should strive for pleasure (meaning meeting basic needs) but not at the expense of others and our relationships with other people. In this case, psychological damage as well as the literal loss of lives was the effect of this complicit collaboration. Although IBM benefited financially, it was the only one receiving pleasure but it was a pleasure of excess (wealth) and not one suited towards meeting basic needs. It also wrought havoc on other people’s ability to maximize their pleasure, safety/security, and peace of mind aka lack of anxiety which causes pain. Ethically IBM was wrong to participate. Epicureanism is a way of living life and making decisions so there isn’t really anything much to say regarding to what extent they are culpable or what kinds of repercussions there should be.

Analysis of Muslim Registry

Recently, there has been significant discussion regarding a “Muslim registry”, largely due to President Trump’s refusal to condemn such an idea. This registry would essentially require immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries to undergo a special registration process, such that relevant information on them could be recorded in a database. Such an idea is not entirely new; in fact, the concept is owed to NSEERS, a program put into place following 9/11. Under this program, people from several Muslim-majority countries were required to register in person with the government upon entering the United States. Additionally, some of these foreigners were required to regularly report to immigration officials while living in the United States. Failing to register (or re-register, which was required every year) with immigration officials, or failing to let the government know about any changes in address, occupation, or schooling, could result in deportation. The program was discontinued after little over a year, but the structure for such a program remains today. In fact, despite the inspector general’s recommendation for the dismantling of the regulations that shaped NSEERS, the Department of Homeland Security refused to tear it down, meaning that the department can, at essentially any time, require the registration of certain immigrants and foreigners. The fact that the structure for a registry program currently remains in place, combined with President Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric and actions, have thrust the idea of a Muslim registry into the spotlight. On the one hand, President Trump’s team has repeatedly denied that he would implement such a program, and though President Trump has yet to actually condemn the idea when asked, he has not expressed legitimate support for it either. On the other hand, Trump’s policies have veered very close to the territory of such a registry. For example, one of his first acts as president was to ban foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from traveling to the United States. Further, President Trump’s border separation policies and constant calls for a border wall between Mexico and the United States show how far he will go to prevent those he deems as threats from entering the United States. If he does choose to implement this registry, he will almost certainly call upon a technology company to provide the relevant data. While large players in the industry like Google and Facebook have already stated they will not help such a cause, the data required for such a registry seems to be available from many other, less well-known sources. Consequently, the technology industry could play a major role, in one way or another, at implementing a Muslim registry. In the eyes of Epicurean ethics, the implementation of a Muslim registry would be wrong. Epicureanism aims to maximize pleasure, without infringing upon the pleasure of others. Implementing this registry, while offering a private corporation pleasure in the form of revenue, would severely infringe upon the pleasure of others. First off, it can result in people being deported for the mere reason that they forgot to register with the government or update them as to their whereabouts or occupation changes. Even worse, they could be deported for never hearing about these requirements in the first place. For instance, in The Atlantic article “America Already Had a Muslim Registry”, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, the director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Penn State Law, notes that the government failed to communicate these requirements effectively, only making announcements in the Federal Register, the government’s official newspaper, which very few average Americans read. Because of this, she noted that “mosques, community organizations, and individuals’ immigration lawyers stepped in to fill the part” and tried to alert relevant parties about how to comply with these new policies. Clearly, it would be easy to miss something, and if you did, it would result in deportation, which would likely displace someone and could break up families, leading to a serious reduction in pleasure. Further, for those who did comply with all the requirements, these policies led to uneasiness and, since they essentially single out a single religion, alienation. In the article mentioned above, Ammar Khawam says that “if this was a universal practice, I wouldn’t be upset. But when it specifically applies to you, then it’s disturbing. It’s demeaning.” This emotional toll further evidences how the implementation of a Muslim registry would infringe upon the pleasure of many. And for what return? The pleasure brought by money cannot compete with the larger, more overarching pleasures that would be infringed upon by this registry: security, safety, peace of mind. On the topic of safety, if the implementation of such a registry would bring additional safety (which can be seen as a subtle, but powerful form of pleasure), it might have warranted more consideration. However, the registry was not even the slightest bit effective. According to The Atlantic article, “the program did not help the government open a single terrorist-related criminal case.” That means the program was a spectacular failure in terms of its goal, which was to increase America’s safety. Finally, by implementing this program, the corporation is promoting race-based discrimination, making it more acceptable, more normal. “The Lesson America Never Learned From the Internment Camp Precedent” in The Liberty Conservative discusses how World War II resulted in wartime paranoia being “a legally justifiable reason to disregard the rights of American citizens.” If current paranoia allows for the continuation of this, who knows how many rights of Americans are at risk. These rights, such as freedom and the pursuit of happiness, are serious, strong forms of pleasure, and could be seriously infringed upon by a corporation’s decision to implement a Muslim registry. So the only pleasure derived from this program would be the money coming into the private corporation, and this is clearly outweighed by serious infringements upon the pleasure of others. Since Epicureans strongly oppose infringements upon the pleasure of others, the implementation of this registry would be wrong. This analysis would not change significantly if the government was implementing such a registry. After all, most of the same pleasures infringed upon in the case of the corporation still stand. One could argue that since people rely on the government for safety and protection of their basic human rights, a policy like this, that turns it back on the same people it was sworn to protect, is worse than a situation where a corporation implements a similar registry. Additional pain could be caused by the mere fact that a person had faith in the government to protect them. This same faith is not afforded to corporations, and thus the case of the government implementing this registry is possibly worse. Additionally, in the case of the government, the money to fund it would be coming from the pockets of taxpayers, taxpayers who, as mentioned earlier, are getting no increase in safety for the money they are paying. Therefore, since the taxpayers are getting no increase in safety (and, consequently, pleasure) for their tax dollars, further pain is caused. So while the implementation of this registry would cause terrible reductions in pleasure and increases in pain when implemented by either a corporation or the government, it seems slightly worse in the case of the government.

Interview

Legalist

Prior to the interview, I believed that the Legalist Ethical Framework would come down on the side that the Muslim Registry is ultimately a necessary action in order to maintain the security and safety of those in charge. This is a huge divergence from the ideas put forth by the Epicurean Framework since Epicurean ethics is focusing more on the individuals working to better themselves while not infringing on the well-being and ability for those people to live a life that maximizes their necessary pleasures. That includes not have the anxiety of fear of not being able to lead this life. Since legalists put such a pressure on the well-being of the state over the well-being of the individuals, there is a sharp clash of ideals that lead to the differing opinions concerning the Muslim registry. Additionally, this concept of keeping this registry could cause potential splits in the friendships and relationships garnered. The registry, while benefiting the state, which concerns itself only with its stability as a entity, would not worry about splitting these relationships, even if it did lead to a fractured society. As Epicureanism looks to cherish friendships as they allow you to follow a good life with the necessary and natural desires in mind, they would work against allowing these splits in society to occur. When asked about the Muslim Registry and how they might change such an action if it was taken, the Legalist Framework responded that, as long as it followed the law of the land, they were in favor of such a registry as it provides more information to the state to keep it in power and in check. Since the citizens themselves are not to be trusted, and as potentially adversarial it is beneficial to take preventative action to be able to act against malicious actions to the state. However, they did make a specific point that it must be within the laws of the state to take such an action, specifically citing that the United States does have a precedent for such a registry, so it would be allowed and could be utilized. But, if it was not, it would be unethical. When asked, they also mentioned that they do not necessarily believe that this should be restricted to just the Muslim population. Any member of the society is an equal opportunity trouble maker, and must be treated as such. That is, more registries should be made in order to best combat any actions toward the state that might threaten its well-being. I would say that my general intuition towards the Legalist perspective was generally correct. Even the backing for why this decision would follow from their reasoning is consistent. Although, I had not anticipated the response for such comprehensive preemptive action. From the Epicurean perspective, this seems like an infringement of the right to an anxiety free life of the citizens, which is show to not be a concern to nearly the same degree under the Legalist perspective.

Stoic

Based on my prior understanding of Stoic Ethics, I believed that that Stoicism would lend itself to not creating a Muslim Registry. However, I came to this conclusion via a much different train of thought as compared to the Epicurean Ethical framework. First and foremost, the Stoics believe in judging off of virtue and intent, with the goal being to have virtuous intent and act virtuously based off of this intent. The Muslim registry, based off of the experience of others and history itself, seems to be an incident of not dealing justice fairly. These individuals are being judged by the actions of others not their own. By making this judgement in this way, there is an element of dishonesty and not-fairly distributed sense of justice to these individuals. Under the Stoic point of view, this is unjust and incorrect. This diverges from Epicurean Ethics in nearly every way but the final decision. While Epicurean Ethics does advocate for not infringing on the abilities of other to follow natural and necessary desires, it’s not really in the name of virtue or justice and the Stoics place their trust in. This is much more about making the wise decision rather than the pleasure maximization decision and the Epicureans would seek to find. It seems like the Stoics will come to the same conclusion, but reason by following the virtuous path rather than the natural and necessary. Following the interview, the Stoics seem to have an even more cut and dry system that I believed there to be prior to the interview. They are indeed against the Muslim Registry, and it is indeed because it is a matter of virtue, but it is not because the overall sense of virtue is negated. Instead, I found that it was a matter of the fact that a single unvirtuous event could occur by the implementation of such an act, then it is considered to be an unethical action to take. This was ultimately surprising, because it seems incredibly limiting and narrow. Instead of looking at the overarching concepts they are applied to, they are looking at any potential future action. This concept began to prove to be a complicating factor when analyzing any possible replacement to instill some sense of national security. Ultimately, they came to the decision that it would have to be some sort of “demerit” based service, based on previous actions, then individuals might fall under the possibility of being monitored. But, even this posed issues since such a system could be misused and abused as well. the Stoic framework is a strange mix of being very divorced from Epicurean Ethics in the sense that Epicurean Ethics is not so focused on exacting justice in this way, but it does focus on the potential pain or unvirtuous outcomes that could occur after any action is taken, as does the Stoic Framework.