please answer all the questionss.,.within 30 minutes. make sure the explanation and reasons are explained in very detailed manner. else leave it for other tutor otherwise i will give negative ratings and will also report your answer for unprofessionalism. Make sure the answer is 100% correct and IS NOT COPIED FROM ANYWHERE ELSE YOUR ANSWER WILL DOWNVOTED AND REPORTED STRAIGHTAWAY. USE YOUR OWN LANGUAGE WHILST WRITING.

ATTEMPT THE QUESTION ONLY IF YOU ARE 100% CORRECT AND SURE. ELSE LEAVE IT FOR ANOTHER TUTOR. BUT PLEASE DONT PUT WRONG ANSWER ELSE I WILL REPORT.

MAKE SURE THE ANSWER IS WELL EXPLAINED AND DETAILED.

On January 28, 2017, the #deleteUber hashtag started trending on Twitter. Although the trend was relatively short-lived, by the beginning of February it had apparently caused over 200,000 users to delete the app from their phones (Isaac, 2017a). In March, a survey found that negative news coverage in the preceding weeks had sharply increased negative perceptions of Uber; and a majority of those who had stopped using Uber in the previous six months cited the negative press as the reason (Richter, 2017). Although the initial #deleteUber tweets were posted in response to Uber CEO (and founder) Travis Kalanick's defense of his December decision to join President Trump's economic advisory council (Flynn, 2017), the trend picked up steam in the aftermath of an executive order from Trump, which restricted immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries (Shear & Cooper, 2017). As a protest against the executive order, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance called for a one-hour ban on picking up riders at JFK airport, and they asked Uber drivers to join the ban. Uber did not join the protest, instead continuing to operate at JFK (although they did turn off surge pricing so as not to profit from the ban). 1 For some, the decision by Uber leadership not to protest the executive order was enough to justify joining the #deleteUber boycott. (Others, of course, were in support of the executive order and thus did not see any reason to protest it.) Some of the observers who were opposed to the executive order expected it to prompt Kalanick to rethink his role on Trump's economic advisory council. Kalanick did say, through a spokesperson, that he would raise the issue at the next council meeting, but he also said that he was not considering stepping down. Some of these observers were also looking for Uber to make a forceful public statement renouncing the executive order (as numerous other Silicon Valley companies were doing), but apart from a statement about the intentions of Uber leadership to compensate drivers who were stranded overseas, there was little official opposition from Uber. SAGE @ Garrett Pendergraft 2021 SAGE Business Cases Page 3 of 14 Should We #deleteUber? For the purposes of this case study, it is not necessary to take a stand on Trump's executive order; in fact, it will be better to remain neutral on the relevant political questions. We can, however, observe that a prior conception of Uber as pro-Trump, together with the choice not to participate in the taxi workers' strike and a lackluster public response by Kalanick to the executive order, appear to have combined to produce enough anti-Uber sentiment that #deleteUber took off. The #deleteUber controversy raises several interesting moral questions. For example: How should company leadership respond to volatile political situations such as the one described above? But this is far from the only controversy that Uber has been involved in, so the #deleteUber phenomenon also invites us to consider questions about the ethics of boycotts. When is a personal boycott morally justified, and when (if ever) is a personal boycott morally obligatory? How are personal boycotts related to larger scale organized boycotts? What are the factors that make an organized boycott morally justified (or unjustified)? All things considered, would it be better to #deleteUber? 2 In order to bring some clarity to these questions, we will begin by looking at some of the concerns about Uber that have been raised in recent years. These range from broad macro-level issues, such as the practice of classifying Uber drivers as independent contractors, to more specific concerns about the culture of the company and the behavior of its executives. As we will see, though, it is difficult to specify in general terms how facts about morally problematic corporate behavior generate a personal moral prohibition on making use of the products or services of that corporation-and even more difficult to see how such facts might generate a moral obligation to engage in or organize a large-scale boycott. Is there a sound argument for the conclusion that consumers ought not use Uber? And if there is such an argument, does it generalize, such that an organized boycott is or would be justified? These are some of the issues that we will be addressing in this case study. Complaints About Uber We will begin by considering some of the broader, macro-level concerns that have been raised about Uber. In considering these concerns, we are not assuming that all of them are valid; they might all be valid, but some (or even all) of them might not be. Rather, we are raising them for the purpose of asking whether, if they are valid, they give us reason to boycott Uber. These broader concerns apply to the business model of the company, and thus would be relevant even if there were no specific complaints about its culture, its employees, or its drivers. There have, however, been quite a few specific complaints as well, as we will see below. Once we have a sense of the various complaints that have been lodged against Uber, we will be in a better position to ask whether they can be combined with some normative principles to support a personal boycott, or even an organized boycott, of Uber. General Concerns Although Uber has generated quite a bit of value for consumers, drivers, and the economy in general, 3 this added value has come from a business model that some people have argued is unjust. 4 The major complaint revolves around Uber employment practices, and in particular the fact that none of their drivers are full-time employees. Instead, their drivers are classified as independent contractors, which means that they do not receive benefits such as overtime, sick leave, health insurance, or retirement plans. 5 There have been some legislative attempts to force Uber's hand (for example, a classification law in California 6 and a driver-specific minimum wage law in New York), but some predict that these legislative efforts will have a negative impact on Uber drivers who only drive part-time, and on other groups as well (Pofeldt, 2019). Even if we set aside the classification issue, however, many have raised concerns about driver wages. For example, Uber has a history of lowering their fares in response to decreases in rider demand (Newcomer, 2016). These price cuts are ostensibly done in order to increase demand, but the end result is often less income for drivers. Some drivers have been sufficiently affected by these changes that they have started "longhauling" (i.e., driving a route that takes roughly the same time, but covers more miles, than the most direct route) in order to offset the decrease in earnings (Bensinger, 2018a). 7 Uber has also been criticized, albeit from more of a strategic perspective than a moral perspective, for its "ask SAGE @ Garrett Pendergraft 2021 SAGE Business Cases Page 4 of 14 Should We #deleteUber? for forgiveness instead of permission" approach to regulation. Its exponential growth has been due in part to its ability to exploit regulatory loopholes, and move faster than regulators can in response, but this has also been detrimental to its core business in places like London, in which transport officials decided in 2017 that they would not renew Uber's license (Thomson Reuters, 2017). Finally, one additional macro-level concern that has been raised about Uber (and other ride-sharing companies) is that they are making traffic and overall congestion worse in large cities. Both Uber itself (Kalanick, 2016) and some academics (e.g., Sundararajan, 2016) have claimed that the proliferation of ride-share services will reduce congestion-a claim that has some intuitive plausibility-but a recent study suggests that the growth of ride-sharing services has actually produced more traffic. The report finds that the proliferation of ride-share services has resulted in significantly more overall miles driven in spite of the reduction in driving miles from personal cars. 8 This concern is not as serious as those involving employment practices, but it does undercut what was supposed to be one of the economic and societal goods brought about by Uber and its competitors. Each of these general concerns is worthy of debate in its own right, and it is beyond the scope of this case study to render a final judgment on any of them. Nevertheless, they are worth considering because they provide an accurate representation of the general complaints that have been leveled at Uber. A decision to boycott Uber, like any other decision, will fall into one of three moral categories: morally obligatory, morally permissible, or morally prohibited (morally wrong). A personal boycott is clearly permissible: Nobody has a general moral obligation to use Uber (or to patronize any other company, organization, or attraction, for that matter), so no justification is required for a decision to refrain from using it. 12 Thus the salient question about personal boycotts is whether a personal boycott of Uber might be morally obligatory. The salient question about organized boycotts, however, is a different one. For reasons we will look at below, an organized boycott does not have the same default moral status as a personal boycott. Some organized boycotts are clearly permissible, but some might be morally wrong. Whereas the salient question about a personal boycott is whether it is merely permissible or actually obligatory, the salient question about an organized boycott is whether it is morally wrong or morally permissible. As we have seen, there are many aspects of the way Uber, its leaders, and its workforce operate that might give us pause. But there is no direct inference from "Uber does bad things" to "We shouldn't use Uber." And even if there were a direct inference, another step would be required to get us to the conclusion that we should initiate or join an organized boycott. We could attempt to construct an argument from scratch, but I propose instead that we examine and borrow some argumentative strategies from the literature on moral vegetarianism. Drawing this parallel promises to be fruitful because the debate over moral vegetarianism shares the same structure as the debate over an organized boycott of Uber: The production of some good or service involves significant harms; and this fact suggests, but does not entail, a moral obligation to refrain from consuming the product or service. Thus, an argument is needed. And since there has been a significant amount of philosophical work done on moral vegetarianism in recent decades, we should look to see if any of that work can help us answer our questions about the permissiblety or obligatoriness of an Uber boycott. Drawing a Parallel Between #deleteUber and Moral Vegetarianism The moral vegetarian argues that we are obligated to refrain from eating meat; or, more simply, that eating meat is wrong. The argument for this conclusion typically runs in two stages. 13 In the first stage, the arguer highlights some feature of the way that meat is produced to support the claim that meat production is wrong. For example, the arguer might point out that industrial animal farming ("factory farming") causes unnecessary animal suffering (unnecessary primarily because there are other available sources of food, but also because there are other ways to farm); and then the arguer might conclude that industrial animal farming is wrong in virtue of causing unnecessary animal suffering. In the second stage, the arguer attempts to establish the wrongness of meat consumption by connecting it to the wrongness of meat production. There are different paths to this conclusion, but one path focuses on the notion of participation. 14 It is wrong to participate in wrongdoing, and to consume factory-farmed meat is to participate in factory farming (which counts as wrongdoing because it causes unnecessary animal suffering); thus it is wrong to consume factory-farmed meat. If consuming factory-farmed meat is morally wrong, then, at least in ordinary circumstances, I ought to refrain from such consumption. Thus, we have the outlines of a strategy for arguing that we are morally obliged to engage in a personal boycott of meat. Question: 1. Given the facts of the case, explain Ubers moral obligation towards Its drivers to treat them as employees and not contractors. State the advantages of this move to Uber and Its employees