I need a reply to this Post:

Requirements for Replies to Other Threads:

• At least two of the four posts required should be in the form of replies to fellow classmates in threads other than your own.
• Each of your replies should be at least 200 words, and informed by the course material. As such, the replies must have citations and references in APA notation. Your list of references for each reply should include all of the course material that has informed your reply, in addition to any research that you have obtained on your own.
• Your replies should focus on the specific examination presented by your fellow students. Address (a) the characteristics of the relevant economic system as presented by your fellow student, (b) the analysis of how laws and/or the economic system affect Uber, as presented by your fellow student,or(c) the moral judgment presented by your fellow student. For any of these choices, you should examine whether the examination or analysis was carried out accurately and successfully. You are encouraged to disagree and challenge what was presented by your fellow student. This does not constitute an attack on your fellow student but an attempt to arrive at a better understanding and application of the material. But you need to provide reasons and support for your disagreement or challenge and propose a more accurate or defensible alternative.
• As mentioned in the Week One discussion, keep in mind that although the notion of the moral good will vary among ethical theories, they often produce the same or similar results. So make sure to distinguish (a) the intent and (b) the consequences of the action under examination.

Uber operates in the United States under a mostly capitalist economic system, however there are socialistic characteristics also at work in our economic system, so it is not purely either system. Characteristics of capitalism are self-interest (i.e. being profit motivated) and the belief is that this self-interest will make society better (i.e. that my demand for luxury items creates jobs for those who make the products). Another characteristic is limited government oversight, which outlines government responsibility for three purposes: defense of US citizens (i.e. military forces), responsibility for the judicial system and lastly, public works too unprofitable to be taken on by the private sector (i.e. transportation infrastructure and public education.) (Fieser, 2016). Socialism on the other hand is characterized by community interest, economic production being owned by the government and lastly where "the government taking control of major economic resources within society to enact policies to reduce class distinctions between the rich and poor." (Fieser, 2016) Bringing together the two pure systems makes the U.S. a type of welfare capitalism, defined by the text as an "economic system that is capitalistic but has social programs that the government runs, such as national health care and government-run child care." (Fiester, 2016)

I live outside of Austin, Texas and Uber has been in the news just this week because they have suspended their services inside the city limits. This occurred because an ordinance was passed by the city council in December 2015, which implemented greater controls on Uber (and other ride-share services) operating in Austin. There was a special election held on May 7, 2016 and the voting public upheld the city council ordinance, requiring Uber to comply. "Nearly 56 percent of voters on Saturday rejected Proposition 1, a stunning defeat for Uber and Lyft, which poured $8.6 million into the election. The results keep in place an ordinance that the City Council approved in December, which requires drivers with ride-hailing apps to undergo fingerprint-based background checks by Feb. 1, 2017, instead of using the name-based checks that Uber and Lyft prefer." (Hicks, 2016)

The ordinance passed in Austin impacts Uber greatly because they have chosen to immediately cease operations in Austin because they do not want to comply with the rules. The concern for Uber will be whether other cities they operate in will follow suit and require stricter regulations as well, forcing Uber into compliance to stay in business. This ordinance is an example of government regulations present in capitalist economies that are typically justified as a means of consumer protection, maintaining free markets, or to redistribute wealth (a fundamentally a socialist idea). The ordinance was aimed at aiding both public safety and to address the free market and the disparity in the regulations that taxi drivers have to adhere to, but Uber drivers do not.

The categorical imperative of deontology states: "Treat people as an end, and never merely as a means to an end. We should treat all people as beings that have value in and of themselves, and not treat anyone as a mere instrument for our own advantage." (Fieser, 2016) The legal concern I have outlined leads me to the conclusion that Uber is not acting morally in its business operations. The Austin ordinance required fingerprint background checks, which is a more secure screening process, to ensure the safety of the public using Uber's service. While I know Uber cannot control the people working for them, there have been publicized cases of problems with drivers, the most recent and extreme in Michigan where an Uber driver murdered six people; more precaution to ensure public safety does not seem unreasonable. Uber wants to be known as a technology platform (Sales, 2014) but the service provided by that platform in the end is the same service provided by a taxi service. The fingerprint background check is similar to what taxi drivers are required to do in Austin, so the requirement helps level this playing field as well. (Jervis, 2016) Rather than make an attempt to negotiate or comply, when the vote did not go in their favor, Uber suspended their service in Austin a year before requirements even went into place, leaving both drivers and users without the service they have relied upon. If Uber saw value in others, specifically the will of the general public's vote, then they would have been more willing to work with the city to find resolution. This action is reflective of a company who is using people as tools for their own gain, and therefore not moral in their actions.