How Philosophy Influences Society:  Starbucks and the Restroom Controversy Introduction

When two African-American men were arrested for loitering outside a Starbucks after being refused permission to use the restroom as they were not purchasing customers,  Starbucks’ CEO Kevin Johnson made the decision to open all Starbucks’ bathrooms to the public regardless of whether the person was a paying customer or not.  This was Starbucks’ attempt to address a problem directly.  This essay will examine the decision of Johnson as a deontologist, a virtue ethicist, and as a utilitarian and show what each would view as the right thing to do in this case.  

The Case

On April 12, 2018, two African-American men were waiting their friends without making any purchase at Starbucks in Philadelphia. The store manager asked them to leave, but they refused, explained that they were waiting for their partners. After that, the manager called police, and said the men refused to leave. Later on the police came in, and arrested them. CEO Kevin Johnson stated that the decision made by the manager was not representative of Starbucks’ Mission and Values.  One month later, Starbucks released a new Third Party Policy, which indicated that anyone could use Starbucks and its facilities without making a purchase.  The CEO was attempting to correct for racial bias by opening its bathrooms and facilities to all people so that such a mistake would not occur in the future (Conklin).  Was this the right thing to do on Johnson’s part?  What would a deontologist say?

The Deontological Perspective

Deontology puts forward the idea that people have a duty to act rightly.  What is right may depend at times on the situation, however.  The theory of moral relativity, for example, falls into the category of deontological ethics:  it presupposes that in some instance it is right to act a certain—for example, if one is trying to save another from being found by a killer, it may be moral to lie about his whereabouts (Sen).  Not all deontologists agree on that point, though, and Kant argued that lying is never right and that moral absolutism applies in such a case.  From perspective of the duty-based ethics philosophy the question depends on how one defines what is right (Karnik, Kanekar).

Ethics is a fundamental aspect of business, and one has to know what one’s duties are towards consumers.  For Starbucks, a company that has set itself apart from peers by being establishing a true third-party type of environment for people who want to come, hang out, use the Wi-Fi, wait for friends, or get away from the rat race and maybe enjoy a latte while doing so, differentiation is what matters (Trout, Rivkin).  What is right for Starbucks, therefore, might not be right for McDonald’s as they are two different companies with different clientele, different brands, different reputations, and different ideals and approaches to the community.  Starbucks is known as being a customer-friendly...

friendly store—i.e., a person can come into a Starbucks without being questioned as to whether he is going to purchase something because he knows Starbucks is customer-friendly and offers free services as part of its approach to business.
When the two African-Americans were arrested for loitering, it appeared that this was in conflict with the business ideal and vision of the company and the manager made the wrong decision to call the police from a deontological point of view.  The decision appears to have been based on race, as the people were black and the manager feared violence as a result of implicit bias.  And, as the case of the Starbucks CEO shows, the real issue was an ethical one:  should managers call the police over a situation where the customer is simply attempting to use the facilities in a manner consistent with the reputation of the company?  The CEO showed that the manager was in the wrong and clarified policy to the extent that all of the public was free to use Starbucks’ facilities in the future.  From the deontological perspective, this was the right thing to do because Starbucks had already made it part of its vision and mission to the community to open its doors to all people whether they were having a small cup of coffee or just needing a place to relax for a while.  Starbucks was about providing an environment—not just java.  It was about culture, and it professed from the beginning that what set itself apart from other companies was that it was committed to bringing a new culture to the restaurant industry.  In other words, it had a duty to differentiate itself from other companies by being inclusive and open.  Thus, a deontologist would say that Starbucks made the right decision with regard to instituting its new policy.

The Virtue Ethicist Perspective

The virtue ethics system stems from the classicalist philosophical tradition, in which the way to lead a moral life is through virtue or good habits.  Good habits are defined as those which lead a person to happiness.  Usually these are related to ideals, such as truth, goodness, unity and so on.  When one lives life according to the commitment to the ideals, one is said to be happiest and most moral.  This was Aristotle’s point of view.

From the standpoint of virtue ethics, the main driving factor in determining whether one’s actions are moral or not is based on the idea of whether one is doing good to others (Holmes).  In the case of the manager calling the police on the two African American men loitering outside Starbucks after being told they could not use the facilities as they were not paying customers, the right thing to do just from a virtue ethics philosophical point of view would have been to allow the men to use the facilities and wait for their friend in peace.  Other customers often go to Starbucks to wait for friends or to study without fear of being hassled.  This is because the coffee house has a reputation as being open to people in this manner.  However, when black people show…