According to Kant, the universalization of the maxim of false promising leads to a contradiction, namely, to everyone adopting the maxim of false promising which would in effect make promising impossible. I first propose a reconstruction of Kant’s reasoning in four steps and then show that each of these steps is highly problematic. In the second part I argue that attempts by several prominent contemporary philosophers to defend Kant fail because they encounter similar difficulties.

Empathy is a specific moral aspect of human behavior. The global workplace, and thereby a consideration of employee stakeholders, includes unique behavioral and ethical considerations, including a consideration of human empathy. Further, the human aspects of workplaces are within the domain of human resources and managerial oversight in business organizations. As such, human emotions and interactions are complicated by daily work related expectations, employee/employer interactions and work practices, and the outcomes of employees’ work routines. Business ethics, human resources, and risk (...) management practices are endemic aspects within workplaces. Increasingly, the understanding of models of AI-reliant business practices underscores the need for the consideration of the ethical aspects of AI impacts on employees in the workplace. This paper explores a systematic ethical lens of the opportunities and the risks of AI ideation, development, and deployment in business-employee relations practices beyond a compliance mindset, and that introduces a further set of workplace considerations. Empathy is concerned with human intentions. As such, attributive ethical indications of the role of AI in the workplace and its impacts on employees is necessary. Moreover, this paper uses a cognitive lens of empathy and focuses on artificial morality related to the ethical concerns, implications, and practices of AI development, deployment, and workplace practices that may impact employees in a variety of business aspects. (shrink)

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are expected to improve road traffic safety and save human lives. It is also expected that some AVs will encounter so-called dilemmatic situations, like choosing between saving two passengers by sacrificing one pedestrian or choosing between saving three pedestrians by sacrificing one passenger. These expectations fuel the extensive debate over the ethics settings of AVs: the way AVs should be programmed to act in dilemmatic situations and who should decide about the nature of this programming in the (...) first place. In the article, the ethics settings problem is analyzed as a trilemma between AVs with personal ethics setting (PES), AVs with mandatory ethics setting (MES) and AVs with no ethics settings (NES). It is argued that both PES and MES, by being programmed to choose one human life over the other, are bound to cause serious moral damage resulting from the violation of several principles central to deontology and utilitarianism. NES is defended as the only plausible solution to this trilemma, that is, as the solution that sufficiently minimizes the number of traffic fatalities without causing any comparable moral damage. (shrink)