Kantian Duty Ethical Frameworks

Ethical Frameworks: Case Scenario
This week’s case scenario involves Jenna, who has just been hired as a new recruiter at a large staffing agency. Her trainer advises her to tell candidates that the organization will get back to them within two weeks of an interview date. However, Jenna is concerned that the agency does not live up to this promise and rarely gets back to candidates. She feels that lying to candidates is unethical as she too would not like to be lied to.
The Kantian duty ethical framework applies best to the current scenario. Kantian ethics emphasizes the idea that all people have a duty to act in a certain way and are required to act in line with this duty even when acting so is not in their best interest (Schulzke, 2012). Kantian ethics is based on the categorical imperative, which requires individuals to act a certain way only if they would will that acting in that way becomes universal law (Budd & Scoville, 2005; Schulzke, 2012). The unethicality of the agency’s actions in the above case can be adequately explained using the three formulations of the categorical imperative.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative requires agents to do to others what they would want others to do to them (Budd & Scoville, 2005). As such, a moral agent is forbidden from lying if they would not wish that others lie to them. Jenna expresses that she would not like to be lied to if she were a candidate. As such, the decision to lie to candidates constitutes a violation of the first formulation.
The second formulation requires agents to treat others as ends rather than means to an end (Budd & Scoville, 2005). The recruitment agency described above invites candidates for interviews as part of its recruitment process. The success of the recruitment process depends on the candidates’ showing up. In other words, if the candidates invited for interviews did not show up, the agency’s recruitment process would not be a success. By lying to candidates, the agency confirms that it does not care about the candidates per se, but only uses them as means to achieving a desired end. The act of lying thus constitutes a violation of the second formulation.
The third formulation requires individuals to act as members of a moral community, where they are both subject and sovereign (Geiger, 2015). In basic terms, this implies that a community should be governed by processes that are acceptable to all members (Geiger, 2015). The agency’s policy is to tell candidates that they will be contacted after two weeks only as a mere formality. However, this policy is not acceptable to some employees such as Jenna, who believe that lying is unethical. The agency’s policy thus violates the third formulation of the categorical imperative.
In summary, the Kantian duty framework applies adequately to the presented case scenario. The agency’s actions contravene the precepts of the categorical imperative and are considered unethical. Kantian ethics imposes upon the agency a duty to treat its candidates like it would like to be treated. It is imperative, therefore, that the agency’s recruiters keep their promise to contact candidates within two weeks of the interview date. Alternatively, they could advise candidates to consider themselves unsuccessful if they do not hear from the agency within two weeks of the interview date.
References
Budd, J. W., & Scoville, J. G. (Eds.) (2015). The Ethics of Human Resources and Industrial Relations. Champaign, IL: Cornell University Press.
Geiger, I. (2015). How are the Different Formulas of the Categorical Imperative Related? Kantian Review, 20(3), 395-419.
Schulzke, M. (2012). Kant’s Categorical Imperative, the Value of Respect, and the Treatment of Women. Journal of Military Ethics, 11(1), 26-41.