Nietzsche v. Bowden In this paper I will analyze the ethical theories of Nietzsche and Bowden and apply them to the recent case involving Volkswagen and its use of “defeat” devices to cheat diesel emissions tests. In order to effectively analyze whether or not the actions of Volkswagen were ethical, I will first discuss Nietzsche’s view of morality, followed by Bowden’s application of care ethics. In Beyond Good and Evil Friedrich Nietzsche presents his critique of morality, as well as the concept of “Master and Slave Morality.” He rejects the idea that the morality of an action is determined based on the consequences of the action because he claims that it is impossible for man to know the true consequences of an action. Although one might be able to predict the immediate consequences of an action, it is impossible to know how that action will cause other consequences further into the future. For example, if I were to steal some medicine for my sick mother, this action might seem ethical or “good” considering the immediate consequences. However, what else might happen as a result of this action further into the future? What if in the process of my theft, I accidentally left the back door to the pharmacy unlocked and the pharmacy was cleaned out, and as a result the insurance company was refusing to cover the pharmacy’s losses. To make matters even worse imagine that the family that owned the pharmacy had to declare bankruptcy which led to the family being unable to pay for a live saving operation for their dying child. Then one might consider my theft an unethical action considering that a child was denied a lifesaving operation. Nietzsche’s argument is that you cannot declare whether or not an action is ethical based on its consequences because even if an action may bring about good in the short term, it may in the long run bring about bad consequences. Nietzsche uses the concept of “Master and Slave Morality” to explain that the values which are commonly attached to the terms of “good” and “evil” are not absolute. He asserts that “the noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgement… he is a creator of values” (Nietzsche 126). Therefore, what one man considers good, may be considered evil by another, and vice versa. Nietzsche defines “good” as the “Will to Power…all that enhances the feeling of power” (Nietzsche 130). The concept of “Will to Power” is further exemplified in the Walter Kaufmann translation of The Will to Power, section 636, “My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension.” Upon analyzing this information, I think Nietzsche would declare that an action ethical if and only if it leads to the attainment of more power and freedom. In Caring: An Investigation in Gender-Sensitive Ethics Peta Bowden discusses care ethics, from a feminist perspective, as it is applied in four particular instances; Mothering, Friendship, Nursing, and Citizenship. For the sake of brevity, we will focus on Mothering and Citizenship. We begin with Mothering, since the mother-child relationship plays a central role in the ethics of care. According to Bowden, “nurturing relations that are conducive to children’s flourishing must foster the public values through which those children’s social environments are ordered” (Bowden 149). Care ethics from a feminist perspective requires that an action be deemed ethical or unethical depending on the circumstances that surround that action. When the relationship becomes less personal, such as in the case of citizenship we have conventionally found that “citizenship allegedly signals the replacement of care with justice, commitment with duty, and the priority of rights over goods” (Bowden 142). Bowden suggests that although citizenship generally involves a less personal relationship, care ethics still apply, “citizen relations offer their own particular caring possibilities” (Bowden 143). There is not an opposition between citizenship and intimacy, but rather a blurring of lines. Therefore “the ethical possibilities of both caring and citizenship require developing a transformed understanding of the nature of social relations, their organization, practice and values” (Bowden 143). Ethics of care recognizes the fact that relationships exhibit interdependence, and insist that one’s choices should take into consideration the contextual details of situations in order protect and the uphold the interests of the involved parties. Accordingly, Bowden would define an action as ethical if and only if it is made with consideration to others involved within the context of the situation. The ethical issue I have chosen to highlight is the recent Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal. Recent “clean-diesel” Volkswagen cars were sold equipped with devices capable of differentiating the indications of a simulated emissions test and actual road driving. These “defeat” devices enabled Volkswagen to claim that their diesel vehicles were producing significantly fewer harmful emissions than they actually were, and as a result Volkswagen was able to sell a large number of diesel cars, particularly here in the United States. Therefore the question we will apply Bowden and Nietzsche’s theories to is the following: Is ethical for a company to enrich itself and its stockholders by deceiving consumers and regulatory agencies? Nietzsche would declare that the actions of Volkswagen were ethical because the company was simply pursuing its “will to power.” The fact that Volkswagen used deceptive practices in order to dominate its competitors would be considered “good” by Nietzsche. He would view the restrictive emissions regulations as “bad” because they restrict the pursuit of freedom. He would promote the values of the “master morality” which seeks empowerment and “does not require to be approved of” (Nietzsche 126). He would view the regulatory agencies concerned with emissions as people who hold the slave morality view which “has an unfavorable eye for the virtues of the powerful” (Nietzsche 127). Bowden would declare that the actions of Volkswagen were unethical because the company failed to take into consideration the effects its actions would have on its stockholders and stakeholders in general. She would say that Volkswagen failed to protect the investment of its stockholders by engaging in risky business practices which ultimately led to a significant loss of wealth for them. Additionally, Bowden would claim that Volkswagen behaved unethically by deceiving its consumer base and putting the general population at risk by exposing them to more harmful gases than they believed were actually being produced by Volkswagen “clean diesel” engines. In conclusion, Nietzsche would proclaim that Volkswagen’s actions were ethical, and Bowden would declare them unethical. I personally agree with Bowden on the grounds that Volkswagen failed to protect investors and the general public by employing unscrupulous business practices which led to negative effects including significant losses to investor wealth and loss of consumer confidence in their brand. However, I do think that the emissions regulation systems is flawed, especially considering the fact that diesel trucks are permitted to produce significantly higher amounts of noxious gases than those produced by diesel passenger vehicles, and this may be due to political lobbying groups. Ultimately, I think that Volkswagen’s actions were unethical because they played dirty in what may be an already dirty game in which the odds were may have been unfairly stacked against them.

Works Cited
Bowden, Peta Lyn. Caring: An Investigation in Gender-Sensitive Ethics. Print.
Pojman, Louis P. "Friedrich Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil." Moral Philosophy a Reader. 4th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2009. Print.