Lubna Alli

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) within food delivery platforms like DoorDash and Uber Eats has redefined consumer interactions by enabling personalized recommendations and dynamic pricing. Although convenient, these practices raise significant ethical questions about discrimination and fairness, as users may experience different service access or pricing based on geographic, economic, or demographic profiles (Wang & Yang, 2020). This paper examines the ethical implications of AI-driven personalization in food delivery through lenses from classical and contemporary ethics, including Plato’s concept of the “Luxurious City,” Kant’s categorical imperative, and Carol Gilligan’s ethics of care, questioning whether these practices ultimately undermine consumer autonomy and equity in digital consumption.

Ethical Analysis of AI Personalization in Food Delivery 

Plato’s “Luxurious City” and the Excess of Personalization

Plato’s notion of the “Luxurious City” from The Republic critiques a society dominated by desires for luxury, which often leads to inequality and ethical erosion (Plato, trans. 2004). AI-powered food delivery platforms may contribute to this “luxurious city” paradigm by continuously promoting high-margin, luxury options, potentially limiting low-income users’ access to affordable choices (He & Thøgersen, 2021). In doing so, the AI-driven prioritization of profit over equitable access risks creating a digital version of the “luxurious city,” encouraging excess while reinforcing social disparities (Turow, 2017). The disparity in food choices thus reflects Plato’s caution about unchecked desires and social division, suggesting that an unregulated pursuit of AI-powered personalization can lead to ethical failures within consumer culture.

Kant’s Universal Ethics and the Challenge of Price Discrimination

Kant’s categorical imperative, which advocates that actions should be universally applicable, raises ethical concerns about AI-based price discrimination in food delivery (Kant, trans. 1998). Dynamic pricing, often based on demographic data, can disadvantage marginalized consumers, clashing with Kantian ethics as it treats individuals as means to an end (Gal, 2019). Studies reveal that platforms often use location or perceived purchasing power to adjust service prices, benefiting affluent users while disadvantaging others (Li & Hong, 2020). Such practices contravene Kant’s principle of fairness by selectively targeting consumers based on socioeconomic status rather than treating them as ends in themselves, raising ethical concerns about how AI-driven discrimination in pricing is increasingly normalized within these platforms (Rieke et al., 2014).

Carol Gilligan’s Ethics of Care in Tech-Driven Services

Carol Gilligan’s ethics of care highlights empathy and attentiveness, emphasizing relational ethics within community contexts (Gilligan, 1982). AI-driven personalization, however, often emphasizes efficiency and individualized experiences over relational ethics, limiting exposure to diverse options and reinforcing cultural silos (Noble, 2018). For example, platforms might suggest familiar cuisines to users based on past orders, rather than encouraging exploration, thereby diminishing communal values central to social well-being (Gupta & Parida, 2022). Through Gilligan’s ethical framework, this lack of inclusivity can be seen as prioritizing convenience and profit over empathy, which underpins responsible technological development and consumer engagement.

Consumer Autonomy and Dependency

A paradox exists within AI-powered personalization: platforms that claim to enhance user autonomy often create dependency cycles through targeted notifications and promotional offers. These algorithms use behavioral data to drive continuous engagement, keeping users in a closed-loop system of digital consumption (Zuboff, 2019). Foucault’s (1995) concept of subtle power aligns with these practices, where choice becomes an illusion carefully shaped by underlying corporate interests. As Baudrillard (1998) argues, these structures establish a “simulacra” of freedom, limiting actual choice within a framework controlled by tech companies. This dynamic cultivates dependency, questioning the genuine autonomy food delivery platforms claim to provide and instead suggesting a manipulation of consumer behavior within the guise of personalization (Sun & Lam, 2021).

Conclusion

The ethical considerations surrounding AI personalization in food delivery reveal the complexities inherent in technology-driven consumer culture. Examined through the ethical frameworks of Plato, Kant, and Gilligan, it becomes evident that AI practices often perpetuate social inequities and foster dependency rather than genuine autonomy. As these platforms grow, integrating ethical safeguards that prioritize inclusivity and fairness is essential to create a balanced digital economy. Addressing biases in AI and promoting authentic consumer choice can contribute to a more equitable and conscientious landscape, encouraging food delivery services to evolve beyond mere profit-driven personalization.