Executive Summary
The executive summary briefly previews this report, encapsulating its core components. The case under scrutiny revolves around the ethical intricacies arising from crowdfunding, specifically spotlighting artist Amanda Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign, where she substantially exceeded her initial funding goal. This scenario triggers ethical considerations surrounding transparency, fund utilization, and the involvement of established artists. The ensuing ethical dilemma prompts an in-depth evaluation through five philosophical lenses: Utilitarianism, Categorical Imperative, Divine Command Theory, Ethical Egoism, and Virtue Ethics. Utilitarianism examines the consequences of Palmer’s actions on overall happiness and stakeholder well-being. The categorical imperative scrutinizes her choices against the principle of treating individuals as ends rather than means. Divine Command Theory aligns Palmer’s behavior with religious or moral obligations. Ethical Egoism evaluates her actions in light of self-interest pursuit. Virtue Ethics delves into the virtuous traits exhibited in Palmer’s conduct. This report navigates through these diverse ethical frameworks, elucidating how each offers distinctive insights into the ethical dimensions of the case. Through this analysis, we aim to shed light on the multifaceted nature of ethical decision-making in crowdfunding and foster a comprehensive understanding of the ethical considerations at play.
Facts of the Case
a).Key Individuals Involved
The case under examination involves several key individuals whose actions and interactions have given rise to ethical considerations within the context of crowdfunding. One of the central figures is Amanda Palmer, a notable artist, and musician with a background as a former Roadrunner recording artist. Palmer undertook a Kickstarter campaign intending to acquire funds for an album project. Her status as an established artist positioned her uniquely within the crowdfunding landscape, influencing the dynamics of her campaign and the subsequent ethical deliberations. Complementing Palmer’s role is the Kickstarter platform, a significant participant in the case. Kickstarter, a prominent crowdfunding platform, facilitated the campaign by providing the essential digital infrastructure necessary for its execution (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). The platform’s mechanisms allowed Palmer to showcase her project and engage with potential backers. This pivotal role highlights Kickstarter’s influence in shaping the ethical dimensions of the campaign, particularly concerning issues such as transparency and accountability in fund utilization.
The third group of individuals vital to the case comprises the supporters who actively contributed to Palmer’s crowdfunding endeavor. Ranging from dedicated fans to more casual contributors, these individuals played an essential role by pledging financial support to Palmer’s project. Their contributions formed the financial backbone of the campaign, enabling Palmer to exceed her initial funding goal by a considerable margin. This collective engagement demonstrates the power of crowdfunding in mobilizing diverse individuals to support creative initiatives. These key individuals, Amanda Palmer, the Kickstarter platform, and the supporters are intricately interwoven within the ethical fabric of this case. Palmer’s status as an established artist, Kickstarter’s role as a facilitator, and the supporters’ financial contributions collectively generate ethical considerations related to transparency, accountability, and the balance between established and aspiring artists in crowdfunding (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). As the narrative unfolds, these individuals’ ethical choices and actions will be scrutinized through the lens of various philosophical approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of their moral implications.
b). Events Leading to the Ethical Dilemma
Amanda Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign garnered substantial notoriety by amassing more than $1 million in funds for her album project, significantly surpassing her initial funding target of $100,000. This remarkable achievement was facilitated by the enthusiastic response and remarkable generosity of the contributors, signifying a profound endorsement of Palmer’s creative endeavor. The fervent support propelled her project to the forefront of public attention, magnifying crowdfunding platforms’ influence as vehicles for financial backing within the arts and entertainment domain. However, the ethical complexity of the situation emerged when it was disclosed that Palmer diverted a portion of the surplus funds raised beyond the ambit of the album project to cover personal expenses (Petition, 2012). This occurrence gave rise to a moral predicament that hinged on the appropriate utilization of funds garnered through the crowdfunding campaign. The ethical tension stemmed from the perceived misalignment between the intended purpose of the funds, which were designated to support the album’s creation, and their subsequent appropriation for personal financial obligations.
This incident underscores a critical ethical concern in crowdfunding, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and the responsible stewardship of funds entrusted by supporters. It poses fundamental questions about the ethical obligations of artists and individuals who receive crowdfunding support and the moral expectations accompanying such financial endorsements. The dilemma exposes the multifaceted nature of crowdfunding campaigns, which not only engage the financial interests of contributors but also invoke broader ethical considerations related to fiduciary responsibility and the ethical implications of resource allocation. Palmer’s actions prompt contemplation on the ethical ramifications of blending personal and project-oriented finances in the context of crowdfunding. Her experience is a poignant reminder of the need for clear guidelines and ethical boundaries to govern funds procured through such platforms. It raises questions about the extent to which artists and creators bear ethical obligations to honor the intended purposes of crowdfunding, ensuring that the financial support received is channeled towards the goals stipulated during the campaign
c). The Ethical Dilemma and Choices for Resolution
The ethical dilemma at the heart of this case emanates from the intersection of crowdfunding and its multifaceted ethical implications. Several interconnected concerns emerge, contributing to the complexity of the situation. Firstly, the issue of transparency and accountability surfaces prominently. A fundamental query arises: Should artists like Amanda Palmer, in this scenario, be obliged to furnish an exhaustive breakdown delineating how the amassed funds will be allocated? This quandary accentuates artists’ ethical responsibility towards their supporters, as these individuals invest in projects with a genuine desire to witness their contributions translate into the intended outcomes (Padgett & Rolston, 2014).
Secondly, the ethical discourse extends to the appropriateness of imposing funding limits within the crowdfunding context. The case illuminates this aspect through Palmer’s campaign, where the surplus funds exponentially exceeded the initial project goal. This dimension prompts the contemplation of whether crowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter, should enact constraints on the magnitude of funds artists can solicit, particularly when the amassed resources surpass the envisaged threshold. The ethical inquiry delves into the balance between encouraging unfettered support and curbing potential excesses (Petition, 2012).
Thirdly, the ethical dilemma navigates the intricate terrain of recognized artists’ involvement versus that of aspiring talents in crowdfunding platforms. The question emerges: Should established artists, potentially endowed with more significant resources and exposure, actively vie for funds on platforms predominantly designed to foster opportunities for emerging creators? This consideration unravels the dynamics of fairness, resource distribution, and the potential impact on aspiring artists’ prospects within the crowdfunding ecosystem.
Amanda Palmer made choices that ignited debates and divergent opinions in seeking resolutions. Using Kickstarter’s platform to incentivize contributors signaled an attempt to engage and reward her supporters. Nevertheless, the ethical discourse remains open-ended, with the case inviting broader contemplation on the ethical obligations of artists, the role of crowdfunding platforms in governance, and the overarching implications for artistic communities. Ultimately, the ethical dilemmas interwoven within crowdfunding necessitate nuanced exploration to delineate the delicate balance between creative aspirations, financial integrity, and ethical responsibility (Padgett & Rolston, 2014).
d). Choices Made to Resolve the Dilemma:
Amanda Palmer’s response to the ethical dilemma through her crowdfunding campaign showcased a blend of strategic decisions, interpersonal engagement, and financial transparency. However, it ignited a range of opinions. To navigate the unanticipated surplus in funds and address the ethical concerns surrounding her use of the money, Palmer adopted several vital choices. These actions shaped her reputation as an artist and offered insight into the evolving landscape of crowdfunding ethics. Palmer harnessed the capabilities of Kickstarter’s platform to offer diverse incentives to her supporters, encompassing everything from exclusive digital downloads to intimate personalized experiences such as private concerts and portrait painting sessions. These incentives aimed to forge a deeper connection between Palmer and her contributors, transcending the conventional artist-fan relationship and creating a shared investment in her creative journey (Padgett & Rolston, 2014).
Although Palmer’s original intent was to secure funding for her album project, the unprecedented success of her campaign resulted in a substantial surplus that exceeded her initial financial target manifold. In response to concerns about fund allocation and transparency, Palmer leveraged her online presence to publish a comprehensive breakdown of the financial utilization on her blog. This transparent disclosure shed light on the allocation of funds, delineating the costs incurred during the project’s preparatory stages, including debt repayment and outstanding bills. This disclosure demonstrated a level of accountability and offered a glimpse into the multifaceted financial aspects of artistic endeavors. Palmer’s choices provoked diverse reactions, with proponents applauding her transparency and intimate engagement with supporters. At the same time, critics questioned the extent to which the surplus funds were aligned with the spirit of the initial campaign. These choices underscore the intricate interplay between artistic expression, financial responsibility, and ethical considerations within crowdfunding (Padgett & Rolston, 2014).
In addressing the controversy surrounding the surplus funds, Palmer defended her actions as emblematic of a new era where artists connect directly with fans, fostering a sense of shared responsibility. The crowdfunding platform Kickstarter faced its ethical crossroads regarding funding caps and established artist participation. The platform ultimately defended its allowance of surplus funds and participation by recognized artists, contending that it facilitated broader engagement and growth within the crowdfunding ecosystem. In essence, the choices made to resolve the ethical dilemma encompassed a mix of personal decisions by Amanda Palmer, the ethical posture of Kickstarter, and the broader implications for the crowdfunding landscape. These choices provided a foundation for assessing ethical implications through diverse philosophical frameworks.
III. Ethical Analysis
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that emphasizes maximizing overall happiness or well-being as the ultimate goal of moral decision-making (Scarre, 2020). It suggests that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain for the largest number of people. In the case of Amanda Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign, an ethical analysis through the lens of Utilitarianism provides valuable insights into the consequences of her choices and actions. Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign successfully raised over $1 million for her album project, exceeding her initial goal of $100,000 (Petition, 2012). The campaign offered various incentives for contributions, ranging from autographed copies of the album to personal concerts at supporters’ homes. From a Utilitarian perspective, the potential consequences of Palmer’s actions need to be evaluated in terms of their impact on all stakeholders involved.
Considering the supporters who contributed to Palmer’s campaign, Utilitarianism would assess whether their overall happiness was maximized. Many supporters were likely motivated by their admiration for Palmer’s work and the desire to contribute to her artistic endeavors. However, it later appeared that Palmer used a portion of the funds for personal expenses (Petition, 2012). This revelation could diminish the happiness of some supporters who expected their contributions to be solely used for the album project. Thus, from a Utilitarian standpoint, Palmer’s actions could be problematic, as they may have led to disappointment and decreased happiness among her supporters. Additionally, Palmer’s choices have implications for the Kickstarter platform itself. Kickstarter takes a five percent fee from successfully funded projects. While Palmer’s campaign generated significant revenue for the platform, the ethical question arises regarding whether it should allow projects that far exceed their initial funding goals. From a Utilitarian perspective, allowing projects to exceed their goals could lead to greater overall happiness for Kickstarter by attracting more projects and contributors. However, this may also create a sense of unfairness among other project creators and supporters, potentially reducing their happiness.
Furthermore, the Utilitarian analysis must consider Palmer’s well-being and happiness. While she exceeded her funding goal and had the financial means to complete her project, her decision to use some funds for personal expenses raises ethical concerns. These actions could diminish Palmer’s happiness if they lead to negative consequences, such as reputational damage or legal issues. Conversely, if Palmer’s expenses enhanced her well-being and allowed her to create a better album, her actions might align more closely with Utilitarian principles. In assessing whether Palmer’s actions align with the principle of maximizing overall happiness, it is evident that her choices have mixed consequences for various stakeholders. While her campaign’s success may have brought happiness to many supporters and contributed positively to Kickstarter’s revenue, the controversy surrounding her use of funds raises ethical dilemmas.
Therefore, an ethical analysis of Amanda Palmer’s choices and actions through the Utilitarian framework highlights the complex interplay of consequences for different stakeholders. While the successful Kickstarter campaign seemed to bring happiness to supporters and the platform, the subsequent revelation of fund usage for personal expenses raises ethical concerns. Ultimately, the evaluation of Palmer’s actions under Utilitarianism underscores the need to carefully consider the potential consequences of decisions in light of their impact on overall happiness.
Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative, a fundamental concept in Kantian ethics, asserts that individuals should be treated as ends rather than merely as means to achieve a particular goal (Martin Jr, 2008). This ethical principle underscores the importance of respecting human dignity and autonomy, requiring actions that uphold and promote the well-being of all parties involved rather than exploiting them for personal gain. Amanda Palmer’s utilization of a Kickstarter campaign to procure funds for her album project provides a compelling framework for assessing her decisions from the vantage point of the Categorical Imperative. Her approach to gathering financial support introduces a complex interplay between treating her supporters and stakeholders as ends or as means to her artistic ends.
Palmer’s crowdfunding endeavor positions her contributors as a means to her artistic objectives. By offering a range of enticing incentives, such as exclusive experiences and merchandise, she strategically incentivized individuals to contribute to her project (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). This initial perspective hints at the potential exploitation of her supporters, wherein their contributions function as a transactional exchange to advance her aspirations. However, an in-depth analysis within the framework of the Categorical Imperative reveals deeper ethical considerations. This philosophical standpoint urges us to delve beyond the superficial transactional nature of crowdfunding and instead evaluate whether Palmer treated her supporters as ends in themselves. This requires probing whether she genuinely acknowledged and respected her contributors’ intrinsic worth and autonomy.
Palmer’s ethical stance is scrutinized, particularly in light of her use of surplus funds. Her choice to allocate the excess money for personal expenses diverges from the fundamental premise of the Categorical Imperative, which emphasizes treating individuals as ends. This divergence prompts a pivotal ethical question: Did Palmer honor her supporters’ contributions with a profound respect for their value, or did she allow her personal interests to override her obligations to those who entrusted her with financial backing? In essence, Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign offers a nuanced ethical terrain that invites an exploration of whether her actions align with the principles of the Categorical Imperative. While her approach may initially appear to prioritize supporters as a means to her artistic ends, the scrutiny required by this philosophical framework casts a spotlight on the depth of her ethical consideration. Her choices, especially the utilization of surplus funds, raise significant ethical inquiries about the extent to which she regarded her contributors as ends in themselves or whether they were merely instrumental to her ambitions.
From a Kantian perspective, Palmer’s actions could be perceived as ethically problematic. While she engaged supporters in her project and provided incentives, her subsequent allocation of surplus funds for personal expenses deviated from the principle of treating individuals as ends. Kantian ethics would likely question whether her actions respected the dignity and autonomy of her supporters, as she seemed to prioritize her own financial needs over fulfilling her promises to them. The Categorical Imperative suggests that Palmer should have prioritized her commitment to her supporters and ensured that their contributions were directed toward the intended purpose – the album project – rather than diverting funds for personal gain. Her deviation from this principle raises concerns about her ethical stance and adherence to the fundamental tenets of Kantian ethics (Padgett & Rolston, 2014).
Therefore, Amanda Palmer’s actions within the context of her Kickstarter campaign present ethical implications when examined through the framework of the Categorical Imperative. While she engaged supporters and offered incentives, her subsequent use of surplus funds for personal expenses challenges the principle of treating individuals as ends. Kantian ethics underscore the importance of respecting human dignity and autonomy, which Palmer’s allocation of funds may have compromised. This analysis highlights the tension between personal interests and ethical responsibilities inherent in crowdfunding, prompting reflection on the moral obligations of artists and entrepreneurs toward their supporters.
Divine Command Theory
Divine Command Theory provides an intriguing perspective on the actions of Amanda Palmer and her Kickstarter campaign. Divine Command Theory is a philosophical approach that grounds ethics in religious beliefs and divine will, suggesting that actions are morally right or wrong based on whether they align with the commands or principles of a higher power (Quinn, 2013). Divine Command Theory posits a direct link between ethical behavior and religious obligations. Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign and subsequent actions can be examined through this lens to determine whether her choices adhered to religious or moral duties. In the case of Amanda Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign, her actions are subject to scrutiny based on Divine Command Theory to assess whether they align with religious or moral obligations.
One key aspect of Divine Command Theory is the concept of ethical obligations stemming from a higher authority. This theory suggests that actions deemed morally right are those that conform to the commands or principles set forth by a divine entity. In the case of Palmer, her Kickstarter campaign sought financial support for her album project, with various levels of incentives offered to contributors (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). By applying Divine Command Theory, it becomes essential to explore whether her actions upheld religious or moral mandates. A pivotal consideration within Divine Command Theory is aligning actions with religious or moral obligations. In Palmer’s case, her decision to raise funds through Kickstarter could be evaluated from this standpoint. For instance, if Palmer’s religious or moral beliefs emphasized honesty, transparency, and responsible use of funds, her actions would be judged based on these principles. According to Divine Command Theory, deviating from these principles could violate her ethical obligations.
Assessing whether Palmer’s actions align with the principles of Divine Command Theory involves thoroughly examining her conduct throughout the Kickstarter campaign. For example, if Palmer’s campaign accurately represented her intentions, used funds for the intended purpose, and upheld the promises made to contributors, her actions could be viewed as ethically aligned with divine or moral principles. However, conflicts with Divine Command Theory may arise if her actions deviate from these ethical considerations. It is worth noting that Divine Command Theory’s applicability is contingent upon an individual’s religious or moral beliefs (Quinn, 2013). Individuals who ascribe to varying belief systems may evaluate Palmer’s actions differently. If Palmer herself adhered to a particular set of religious or moral principles, her actions could be judged against those principles outlined by Divine Command Theory.
Lastly, Divine Command Theory offers a unique perspective on the ethical analysis of Amanda Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign in the case study “Crowd Funding: A Case Study at the Intersection of Social Media and Business Ethics.” This theory, rooted in religious and moral obligations, evaluates whether Palmer’s actions align with higher authority’s commands. By considering whether Palmer’s conduct adheres to these commands, one can gain insights into the ethical nature of her Kickstarter campaign and subsequent actions.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Egoism posits that individuals should prioritize their self-interest and well-being above the interests of others. It suggests that individuals are morally justified in pursuing actions that maximize their benefits and minimize their potential harm (Dathe et al., 2022). In the context of crowdfunding, Ethical Egoism would evaluate whether an individual’s actions are motivated by self-interest and whether those actions contribute to their welfare. Amanda Palmer’s crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter provides a rich case for analyzing through the lens of Ethical Egoism. Palmer raised over $1 million for her album project, far exceeding her initial goal of $100,000. She attracted supporters by offering various incentives based on contribution levels, including personalized experiences and merchandise. This approach aligns with the principles of Ethical Egoism, as Palmer sought to maximize her benefits by enticing potential contributors to donate generously.
Palmer’s actions embody Ethical Egoism, as she strategically designed her campaign to attract substantial funding. By offering unique rewards and fostering a sense of connection with her supporters, Palmer aimed to serve her own best interests by securing the financial resources needed for her project. Her ability to raise significant funds enabled the completion of her album and enhanced her reputation and visibility within the music industry. From the standpoint of Ethical Egoism, Palmer’s behavior aligns with the principle of pursuing self-interest. Her actions demonstrate a keen understanding of incentivizing potential contributors to invest in her project. By offering tangible and intangible rewards, Palmer appealed to her fans’ appreciation for her music and leveraged their desire to be part of a unique experience. This strategic approach helped Palmer achieve her personal goal of funding her album project while simultaneously enhancing her brand and artistic endeavors (Padgett & Rolston, 2014).
While Palmer’s actions in her crowdfunding campaign can be justified from the perspective of Ethical Egoism, this approach also raises ethical concerns. Critics might argue that while her pursuit of self-interest led to the attainment of personal benefits, it could potentially overshadow the needs and interests of her supporters. Some contributors may have believed their contributions were primarily intended to support the album project itself rather than Palmer’s personal gain. Additionally, applying Ethical Egoism in the context of crowdfunding raises broader questions about the ethical obligations of artists and entrepreneurs. Is it ethically acceptable for individuals to prioritize their own interests over the expectations of their supporters, especially when those supporters contribute intending to advance a creative endeavor?
Analyzing Amanda Palmer’s crowdfunding campaign through the lens of Ethical Egoism reveals a complex interplay between self-interest and ethical considerations. While Palmer’s actions align with the principle of pursuing personal benefits, they also prompt reflection on the broader ethical implications of crowdfunding dynamics. Ultimately, Ethical Egoism offers a framework for understanding the motivations behind Palmer’s choices. However, it also highlights the need for a balanced approach that respects the interests of both artists and supporters within the evolving crowdfunding landscape.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics is a philosophical approach that emphasizes cultivating virtuous character traits as the foundation for ethical decision-making (Van, 2014). In this analysis, we will evaluate Amanda Palmer’s behavior within the context of Virtue Ethics, considering whether her actions align with virtuous traits such as honesty, integrity, and responsibility and whether her conduct adheres to the principles of this ethical framework. Virtue Ethics centers on the idea that ethical behavior arises from developing and practicing virtuous qualities. These virtues include compassion, courage, honesty, and integrity, which guide individuals in their actions and decisions (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). Palmer’s case provides an opportunity to assess whether her conduct reflects these virtues.
Examining Palmer’s behavior through a Virtue Ethics lens reveals positive and concerning aspects. On the one hand, Palmer’s willingness to engage with her supporters personally and her efforts to deliver unique incentives, such as personalized art and intimate concerts, demonstrate a level of compassion and dedication to her art (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). These actions suggest a genuine desire to connect with her audience and create meaningful experiences, which aligns with virtuous traits. However, some aspects of Palmer’s actions raise ethical questions from a Virtue Ethics perspective. One notable concern is her use of the raised funds for personal expenses, despite the initial intention of the Kickstarter campaign being to fund her album project (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). This raises issues of honesty and integrity, as her actions deviate from the implied agreement with her supporters. Virtue Ethics emphasizes the importance of acting truthfully and maintaining one’s integrity, which prompts us to question whether Palmer’s decision aligns with these virtues.
Moreover, Palmer’s decision to request “professional-ish” musicians to perform for free during her tour raises ethical concerns from a Virtue Ethics standpoint (Padgett & Rolston, 2014). While Palmer may argue that she lacked the financial resources to pay the musicians, this decision contradicts the virtue of fairness. It may be seen as exploiting the goodwill of other artists. Virtue Ethics calls for treating others justly and considering their well-being, and Palmer’s request for unpaid labor challenges the application of this virtue. Determining whether Palmer’s actions align with the principles of Virtue Ethics requires a balanced assessment of her conduct. While she displays virtues like compassion and dedication to her art, her choices regarding the use of funds and treatment of fellow musicians raise ethical concerns. In the context of Virtue Ethics, evaluating her behavior would depend on the extent to which these virtues are upheld and the overall character they reflect (Padgett & Rolston, 2014).
Therefore, Virtue Ethics provides a valuable framework for analyzing Amanda Palmer’s behavior in the crowdfunding case. While her actions demonstrate some virtuous qualities, such as compassion and dedication, they also raise ethical concerns about honesty, integrity, and fairness. The evaluation of Palmer’s behavior from a Virtue Ethics perspective underscores the complex interplay between different virtues and the challenges of maintaining ethical conduct in multifaceted situations.
In Conclusion
In this report, I applied five ethical theories to the case of Amanda Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign: Utilitarianism, Categorical Imperative, Divine Command Theory, Ethical Egoism, and Virtue Ethics. Each theory offered me unique insights into the ethical dimensions of the case. Utilitarianism allowed me to examine the consequences of Palmer’s actions on overall happiness and stakeholder well-being. Categorical imperative helped me scrutinize her choices against the principle of treating individuals as ends rather than means. Divine Command Theory delved into aligning Palmer’s behavior with religious or moral obligations. Ethical Egoism helped me evaluate her actions in light of self-interest pursuit. Virtue Ethics allowed me to delve into the virtuous traits exhibited in Palmer’s conduct.
Through my analysis, I found that each ethical theory provided valuable perspectives on the case. Utilitarianism highlighted the importance of considering the impact of actions on all stakeholders, while Categorical Imperative emphasized the need to treat individuals with respect and dignity. Divine Command Theory highlighted the role of religious or moral obligations in ethical decision-making, while Ethical Egoism emphasized the importance of self-interest. Virtue Ethics underscored the significance of cultivating virtuous traits in ethical decision-making. Of the five ethical theories I applied to the case, I found that Virtue Ethics best addressed the dilemma described in the case. This is because Virtue Ethics focuses on the character and virtues of the individual rather than just the actions themselves. In the case of Amanda Palmer, her actions were not necessarily unethical, but her character and virtues were called into question. Specifically, her lack of transparency and accountability in her use of the funds raised through Kickstarter raised ethical concerns. By applying Virtue Ethics, Palmer’s actions were not in line with the virtues of honesty and accountability, which are essential for ethical behavior.
Overall, the people in the case acted unethically. While Amanda Palmer’s intentions may have been good, her lack of transparency and accountability in her use of the funds raised through Kickstarter raised ethical concerns. Additionally, her failure to fulfill some of the incentives promised to her supporters further eroded trust in her as an artist and a person. Furthermore, the Kickstarter platform was criticized for its lack of governance and accountability in ensuring that funds were appropriately used. Therefore, the case of Amanda Palmer’s Kickstarter campaign highlights the complex ethical considerations involved in crowdfunding. By applying multiple ethical theories, I can understand the ethical implications of her actions and the broader ethical challenges that crowdfunding platforms pose.
References
Dathe, T., Dathe, R., Dathe, I., & Helmold, M. (2022). Ethical Theories. In Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Sustainability and Environmental Social Governance (ESG) Approaches to Ethical Management (pp. 95–106). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-92357-0_7
Fiegerman, S. (2013). Kickstarter responds to critics of Zach Braff’s campaign (May 10).
http://mashable.com/2013/05/10/kickstarter-zach-braff-critics/
Martin Jr, B. (2008). Ethical Marxism: The categorical imperative of liberation (Vol. 1). Open Court.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UNQBAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Categorical+Imperative+ethics&ots=798h6FSknF&sig=-OgRc7a8PA-JsSNAWC3McbmfVno
Padgett, B. L., & Rolston, C. (2014). Crowd Funding: A Case Study at the Intersection of Social Media and Business Ethics. Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 20(3).
Palmer, A. (2012). Blog post (May 13). http://amandapalmer.net/blog/
Peoples, G. (2013). Amanda Palmer Q&A: Why pay-what-you-want is the way forward, and more (January 28).
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/indies/1533797/amanda-palmer-qa-why-pay-what-you-want-is-the-way-forward-and-more
Petition (2012). Amanda Palmer: Pay ALL the musicians that perform on your tour.
http://www.change.org/petitions/amanda-palmer-pay-all-the-musicians-that-perform-on-your-tour
Quinn, P. L. (2013). Divine command theory. The Blackwell Guide to ethical theory, pp. 81–102.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00006.x
Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003070962/utilitarianism-geoffrey-scarre
Van Hooft, S. (2014). Understanding virtue ethics. Routledge.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s6jgBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=virtue+ethics+theory&ots=FXqjuAR1eC&sig=JTn8mkLp6eDCCKPqIBdwkstMzns
write