When Is a Company’s Product Responsible for Causing Injuries?” presents an opportunity to consider the ethical challenges associated with negligence. The authors explain that “negligence involves having the ability to foresee the consequences of our acts and failing to take steps to avoid the likely harmful consequences” (p. 314)(Chapter 8-Ethics and Marketing). For this application paper, read the Reality Check on page 314, and then craft an academic paper that addresses the four sets of questions it posed:
What liability, if any, should Snapchat have for the damages caused by this accident? No one denies that the driver bears primary responsibility, but did Snapchat also contribute to the harms caused?
What uses could Snapchat have reasonably foreseen for this speed filter? What could Snapchat reasonably be expected to know about the users of its products?
Was the advice contained in the terms of service sufficient warning to protect Snapchat from any misuse of its products?
Do you think that the speed filter is a dangerous product? Was Snapchat negligent in marketing this product?
Full Answer Section
- Failure to Act: Despite potentially foreseeing the misuse, Snapchat did not take adequate measures to prevent it. Warnings in the terms of service may not be enough, especially for younger users.
- Foreseeable Uses and User Knowledge:
Snapchat could have reasonably foreseen several uses for the speed filter:
- Bragging Rights: Sharing high speeds online for social validation.
- Encouraging Risky Behavior: Competition among friends to achieve higher speeds.
- Distraction: Focusing on capturing the filter data could divert attention from safe driving.
Regarding user knowledge, Snapchat should be aware of its user demographics. The app is popular among teenagers, a demographic known for higher risk-taking behavior.
- Sufficiency of Terms of Service Warnings:
The terms of service warnings likely fall short of sufficient protection for Snapchat. Legal disclaimers might not effectively deter misuse, particularly for young users who may not read them thoroughly.
- Danger of the Speed Filter and Marketing Ethics:
The speed filter presents a clear danger by potentially encouraging reckless driving.
The marketing tactics of Snapchat also raise ethical concerns. If the app promotes excitement and a "live-in-the-moment" culture, it could indirectly contribute to impulsive or risky behavior like using the speed filter while driving.
Conclusion:
Snapchat may share some liability in accidents involving the speed filter due to the potential for foreseeable misuse and a lack of adequate safeguards. The company should take responsibility for the design and marketing of its products, especially those that could pose safety risks. Implementing stricter age verification, in-app warnings about responsible use, and refraining from marketing that glorifies reckless behavior could all be steps towards mitigating future harm.
Sample Answer
The Reality Check on page 314 of "When Is a Company’s Product Responsible for Causing Injuries?" presents a complex ethical dilemma surrounding the Snapchat speed filter and its potential role in a car accident. This paper will analyze the four key questions raised in the Reality Check, examining the potential liability of Snapchat and the ethical implications of the product's design and marketing.
1. Liability of Snapchat:
While the driver undoubtedly holds primary responsibility for the accident, Snapchat's potential role needs consideration. Here's why:
- Foreseeability: Snapchat could foresee the potential misuse of the speed filter, considering its gamification element and the inherent dangers of exceeding speed limits.