Demand for accessibility as a moral-philosophical problem
This discussion addresses the question of whether the demand for accessibility is legitimate—understood as a moral and philosophical problem. The starting point is the everyday practice that people and organizations expect providers of digital services to ensure that their websites, apps, or platforms are accessible. This gives rise to the fundamental question: Are we morally and philosophically legitimate to make such a demand?
Demand and Demandee
The Sender's Perspective
First, it is important to distinguish who is making the demand. Basically, two starting points can be identified:
1. The demand is made by an individual.
2. It originates from an organization or institution.
In the following, the first perspective—the individual as sender—will be the focus.
Conditions for the Legitimacy of Individual Demands
An individual demand for accessibility is generally legitimate if two conditions are met:
1. Factual basis:
The demand must be justified to the best of one's knowledge and belief. If a person finds that a website is not accessible, they may point this out, even if they lack expertise in digital accessibility. It is crucial that the person can reasonably believe that the problem is not their own, but actually the website or app.
2. Respectful form:
The demand should be expressed in a respectful manner. This means: criticism is directed at the object (the website, app, etc.) and not at the people behind it. Defamatory criticism is problematic because it generally comes across as insulting and contains personal attacks instead of focusing on the actual issue. However, respect does not necessarily mean observing all forms of politeness; Rather, it's about conducting the dialogue objectively, respectfully, and constructively. Criticism can certainly be pointed, because otherwise it will simply roll off the page.
Individual Demands as Morally Justified
Individual demands for accessibility are therefore almost always morally legitimate. A key reason for this is that they are typically directed from a single person to an organization. It is therefore not a personal dispute between individuals, but rather a legitimate expectation that institutions will fulfill their responsibility for accessibility.
A key aspect of the question of the legitimacy of demands for accessibility is the power imbalance between the individual and the organization. Often, there is a dependency: For example, if a person has to submit an application or is dependent on a specific product—such as a medication—they are in a position where they are dependent on the respective organization. In such cases, it is morally justified to make demands for accessibility because the organization bears a responsibility to those affected.
Special Case: Accessibility Consultants
A special situation arises when the person making the request is themselves an accessibility consultant.
• If the person making the request is an affected person (e.g., someone with a disability) or a person who has close ties to those affected, the request is legitimate.
• However, it becomes problematic if the person making the request themselves offers accessibility services. In this case, the suspicion may arise that the request is being made not only for moral reasons, but also for economic reasons.
Even though every accessibility consultant can and should, of course, have the goal of making as many websites as possible accessible, the question of self-interest remains. Public requests – for example, on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) or Facebook – can generate not only content-related attention but also marketing effects: increased reach, likes, shares, and potentially new customers. This type of request therefore falls into a gray area of legitimacy that must be considered in a differentiated manner.
The Recipient's Perspective
In addition to the sender of the request, the recipient is also crucial. Not every organization or individual is equally capable of providing accessible digital offerings.
While larger institutions have (or can acquire) expertise and resources, this does not necessarily apply to small units or individuals. Examples include:
• a self-employed craftsperson,
• a doctor with her own practice,
• or a privately operated website in the hobby sector.
This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to make the same demands as large organizations. Smaller actors often have neither the technical knowledge nor the financial means to implement comprehensive accessibility. The moral assessment of a request must therefore also consider the ability and reasonableness of the recipient.
The question of the legitimacy of accessibility demands is also a question of cost. For smaller actors – such as individuals or micro-enterprises – it can be disproportionate to demand extensive investments. For example, adapting a website to be accessible using a modular system can easily cost several thousand euros. For large companies, this may be a manageable expense, but not for sole proprietors or hobbyists. Caution is advised here, whereas for organizations with sufficient size and financial resources, the demand for accessibility can generally be considered reasonable and thus justified.
Philosophical Argumentation Patterns
Classical argumentation patterns from philosophy can be used for assessment.
Idealism
The German idealism of the 19th century, for example that of Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, is particularly influential.
Kant's categorical imperative – "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" – provides a clear ethical standard: Anyone who wants others to act virtuously must act accordingly themselves. Applied to accessibility, this means: Anyone who demands that others make their websites accessible should also make their own digital offerings accessible. Otherwise, a contradiction arises that could be considered double standards or hypocrisy.
Different Options for Action
However, this argument has its limits. Not every recipient of a demand has the means or knowledge to implement accessibility. While individuals generally do not bear their own responsibility for the accessibility of digital offerings, they are dependent on the accessibility of organizations. The power relationship is thus asymmetrical: Individuals need accessible offerings but cannot create them themselves, while organizations certainly have the ability to provide them. This means that an individual's demand of an organization is morally legitimate – even if the individual cannot offer accessible structures themselves.
Organizations as Senders of Demands
The situation is different when an organization itself makes demands of other organizations. One example of this is regular studies on digital accessibility, such as those conducted by Aktion Mensch in Germany. Such studies evaluate online shops or other digital offerings with regard to accessibility and publish the results.
While this isn't a direct demand, it is a form of public pressure. Especially when such studies are published regularly and repeatedly show that little improvement has been achieved, an implicit pressure of expectation arises for the affected organizations. This is the case with the most recent study in summer 2025: Despite the requirements in place since the European Accessibility Act (EAA) came into force, no fundamental improvement could be identified.
When evaluating public criticism, the question arises whether it is a legitimate demand or whether a "pillory effect" is emerging. When organizations like Aktion Mensch regularly publish accessibility studies and accuse certain online shops of failing to improve over the years, such a pillory effect is quite likely. The implicit accusation is: You had enough time, but you did nothing.
Personal responsibility of the demanding organizations
This approach becomes difficult when the demanding organization itself is unable to make its own offerings accessible. Aktion Mensch, for example, operates an online shop for its lottery products and admits in its own accessibility statement that neither its website nor its app is fully accessible.
From the perspective of German idealism, this would be a contradiction. The categorical imperative demands that demands are only legitimate if one also fulfills them. Applied to this case, this means: An organization that publicly informs others about a lack of accessibility must first make its own offerings accessible. Otherwise, it faces accusations of double standards.
This applies not only to Aktion Mensch, but also to others such as the social association VdK. This organization, too, regularly criticizes a lack of accessibility without simultaneously ensuring that its own digital offerings are consistently accessible.
Power Relations and Prominence
At the same time, the size and reach of the respective actors must be considered. While corporations like Amazon or MediaMarkt have far greater financial resources than Aktion Mensch or the VdK, there is certainly a balance in terms of social prominence. Aktion Mensch is almost as well-known in Germany as large retail companies, so its voice exerts comparable authority.
In this respect, this is not a classic case of "David versus Goliath," but rather "Goliath versus Goliath." The criticism of commercial providers is therefore legitimate, but can also be redirected back to Aktion Mensch: You, too, must make your own offerings accessible if you demand this of others.
Utilitarianism
In addition to idealism, the problem can also be viewed from the perspective of utilitarianism. While idealism is based on the moral principle of the individual, utilitarianism is based on the benefit for society as a whole. The benchmark here is not the internal consistency of the demand, but rather the question of whether its implementation produces the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people.
Utilitarianism was significantly shaped in the 18th and 19th centuries by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and remains an influential ethical model to this day. A prominent contemporary representative is the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who is highly controversial, particularly in the disability movement, but at the same time very well-known.
In contrast to idealism, utilitarianism places less emphasis on the moral consistency of the sender of a demand and more on its social utility. What matters is not who makes a demand or whether the person making the demand complies with it, but whether the demand results in a greater overall good.
A classic example: Even if a person is a pickpocket themselves, their demand that others refrain from pickpocketing can still be morally sound – provided it leads to many people actually refraining from stealing. The benefit to society in this case would be greater than if the person alone changed their behavior.
Applying this argument to accessibility, one could say that if organizations like Aktion Mensch or the VdK publicly demand that websites be designed to be accessible, this could potentially have a powerful impact. Even if these organizations haven't made their own offerings fully accessible, their appeals could help numerous other providers implement accessibility. The social benefit in this case would be greater than if only Aktion Mensch made its own online shop accessible. However, this argument has its limits. Demands exert their impact not only through their content, but also through the credibility of the sender. If an organization demands accessibility from others but has been unable to design its own digital offerings accordingly for years, despite having the resources to do so, it loses moral authority. Aktion Mensch is also setting a poor example by using an accessibility overlay and promoting accessibility overlays to others. It thereby demonstrates its own limited understanding of digital accessibility and undermines its own credibility. Many providers of accessibility overlays act as bullies in the field of digital accessibility: They intimidate critics with legal means, make false promises, and put pressure on potential customers. Aktion Mensch is aware of this, yet it supports such providers and thus aligns itself with their methods.
This leads to a dilemma:
• Benefit argument (utilitarian): Public pressure creates more accessibility across the board than if the organization alone were exemplary.
• Credibility problem (practical-ethical): The longer the organization falls short of its own standards, the more its authority suffers – and ultimately, the effectiveness of the demand.
Amazon could rightly ask: Why are you auditing us instead of getting things moving yourself?
Utilitarianism does not offer a definitive solution here. It can explain why a demand can be legitimate despite an inconsistent sender, but largely ignores the question of credibility and long-term effectiveness.
Personal Responsibility as a Fundamental Principle
A central principle that applies from both an idealistic and a utilitarian perspective is personal responsibility: Before making demands on others, you must ensure accessibility within your own means.
In concrete terms, this means:
• You must have the resources, knowledge, and time to make your website accessible. And you must not only verbally express your willingness to do so, but also actually implement it. The website must be designed to be accessible within the limits of one's own capabilities.
• Only when these requirements are met is it ethically justifiable to point out a lack of accessibility to others.
This principle highlights a common problem in the accessibility community: Criticism is often expressed quickly, while one's own actions are not always exemplary. However, it must be noted that a claim to perfection is unrealistic. No one can implement a website perfectly according to all guidelines (e.g., WCAG). The crucial thing is to do the best one can within one's own capabilities. Minor deficiencies, such as missing alternative text or individual labels, are annoying but unavoidable.
The case of Aktion Mensch clearly illustrates the challenge:
• The organization has had many years to make its own digital offerings accessible. It undoubtedly also has the financial means to implement accessibility.
• Due to a lack of insight and a lack of priority in the departments, marketing, and management, this task has not yet been implemented. Neither its own high standards for digital accessibility nor the Federal Accessibility Act (BFSG) have provided a decisive impetus here.
• At the same time, Aktion Mensch published studies that publicly criticize other providers for their lack of accessibility.
This approach is difficult because it undermines the organization's credibility. From an ethical perspective, those who have the opportunity to act as role models should do so before accusing others.
For accessibility consultants and other experts, this means that they should act cautiously and thoughtfully, especially when making demands publicly. The message should always be communicated objectively, respectfully, and with an awareness of their own ability to act.