So what makes these acts wrong? As I have stated previously, according to Deontological ethics we have a “duty” to act ethically in all maters. So the premise of this theory seeks to justify our obligation to behave in some ways and not in others. Further more the essence of deontological ethics is that an action’s moral value is independent of its consequences. An actions moral value depends on whether the motivation was to ones duty. So its clear that under the theory of deontological ethics the Rigas family acted unethically. They had a duty to their company, shareholders and the common public to not only act ethically, but also had legal responsibilities which they violated. By their very acts of they have proven that they have no ethical or moral fiber. Every shareholder was personally and financially affected, employees were also harmed, and the general public was mislead and damaged by their fraud and greed.
According to Kant’s Imperative if your motivation is not ethical, then the action itself will not be ethical. Therefore the Rigas use of company funds and assets was not ethical. One can only speculate why the Rigas family felt it was ok to use company funds and property as their own, or did they? Buy attempting to conceal their actions they obviously knew it was