Ethical Choice / Decision:

 

Situation

Fyre Festival was a heavily marketed event that didn't follow through what their advertisements promised. One of the key decision makers was Billy McFarland. He pushed for a branding narrative of a "luxurious festival" measuring up to Coachella standards (Make It, 2019). In truth, the Fyre Festival was poorly funded, ill-equipped, and basic necessities such as food, water and shelter were scarcely provided. The organization was debating on making the following moral decisions: Cancelling the event, or informing consumers about the reality of the event so that they could make informed decisions (Livingstone, 2019). 

Final Decision

Ultimately, the final decision, largely made by Billy McFarland, was to push forward with the festival. The organization however, did not choose to inform consumers about the reality of the festival, in that they were ill-equipped. Decision makers at Fyre chose not to cancel the event either. As a result, workers were left unpaid and customers were left to "fend for themselves" (Marc Weinstein, Fyre). Decision makers have argued that Billy McFarland knew that Fyre was not delivering what they had initially advertised and promised, and that he pushed the team into running the festival anyways (Luca Sabatini, Fyre). 

Theories

Based on Kantian theory, the final decision would be deemed an unethical one. Key components of this theory are the concept of universality, humanity, and goodwill & duty. Universality considers whether or not one would want everyone to make the same decision. Humanity considers whether there is respect for everyone. Finally, duty considers making a decision regardless of the harms or benefits. The final decision made by Fyre does violate what is deemed as "moral" in this theory. The key decision makers were responsible for scamming thousands of people, and it is clear that they themselves believed that they were running a scam. It is possible that Billy McFarland was an idealist, not having a good grasp of reality. This can be observed in his past business endeavours like Magnum. However, this does not excuse the fact that the key decision makers would not have wanted this scam to be done to themselves. There was no respect for any of the stakeholders. The final decision meant that people lost their credibility, wasted time, and their money. This was the reality of the aftermath of Billy's decision. The dutiful action would have been to cancel the event and deal with the consequences. As such the final decision was not the ethical choice according to Kantian theory. 

Utilitarianism theory bases ethical choice on whether the decision generates the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Happiness, pain, and pleasure are also components of this theory, falling under consequentialism. Based on this understanding, the final decision was unethical. This decision meant that many people wasted their time, money, and resources. Leaving all stakeholders including the decision makers unhappy, as they had to face legal consequences after the fact. This decision had long term negative effects as many decision makers' reputations have been tarnished, with the consideration that many consumers were left non-refunded and workers were left unpaid. There appeared to be little consideration for the consequences of the final decision, therefore, making the decision unethical. In conclusion, the group believes that the Kantian theory was used to rationalize the organization's final decision. Acting out of duty towards the consumers regardless of the social consequences. As stated above, idealism could have played a part in the final decision, blinding decision makers of the seriousness of the situation as well.

 

Winter 2022 - Additional Note

Indicate your view on which of these two theories influenced the organizations' final decision?