utili tarin is m

8/12/2019 Utili Tarin is m

1/15

Utilitarianismis a theory innormative ethicsholding that the proper course of action is the one

that maximizesutility,usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Classic

utilitarianism's two most influential contributors areJeremy BenthamandJohn Stuart Mill.JohnStuart Mill in his bookUtilitarianism,stated, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read

the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's

neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According toBentham and Mill, utilitarianism ishedonisticonly when the result of an action has no decidedlynegative impact on others.

[1]It is now generally taken to be a form ofconsequentialism,although

whenAnscombefirst introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned

utilitarianism" and consequentialism.[2]

In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome,

although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences,foreseen consequences and intended consequences. InA Fragment on Government, Bentham

says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong"[3]

and describes this as a fundamentalaxiom.InAn Introduction to the Principles of Morals and

Legislation, he talks of "the principle of utility" but later prefers "the greatest happinessprinciple."[4][5]

Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative andreductionistapproach to ethics. It is a

type ofnaturalism.[6]

It can be contrasted withdeontological ethics,[7]

which does not regard the

consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral worth;virtue ethics,[8]

which primarily

focuses on acts and habits leading to happiness;pragmatic ethics;as well as withethical egoismand othervarieties of consequentialism.

[9]

Utilitarianism is influential inpolitical philosophy.Bentham and Mill believed that a utilitariangovernment was achievable throughdemocracy.Mill thought thatdespotismwas also justifiable

through utilitarianism as a transitional phase towards more democratic forms of governance. Asan advocate ofliberalism,Mill stressed the relationship between utilitarianism andindividualism.

[10]

Ethical Theory and Its Application to

Contemporary Business Practice

March 15, 2013Academic writing (Business, health, technology and education related topics),

Business related issuesDeontological ethics,Ethics,Immanuel Kant,Jeremy Bentham,JohnStuart Mill,Kantianism,Negative and positive rights,Rawl

1 Vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Benthamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Benthamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Benthamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Millhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Millhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Millhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism_%28book%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism_%28book%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism_%28book%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-ShengSheng2004-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-ShengSheng2004-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-ShengSheng2004-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Varieties_of_consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Varieties_of_consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-sep_jsmill-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-sep_jsmill-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-sep_jsmill-10http://ncys82.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/ethical-theory-and-its-application-to-contemporary-business-practice/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/ethical-theory-and-its-application-to-contemporary-business-practice/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/category/academic-writing-business-health-technology-and-education-related-topics/business-related-issues/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/category/academic-writing-business-health-technology-and-education-related-topics/business-related-issues/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/ethics/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/ethics/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/ethics/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/immanuel-kant/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/immanuel-kant/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/immanuel-kant/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-bentham/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-bentham/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-bentham/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/john-stuart-mill/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/john-stuart-mill/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/john-stuart-mill/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/john-stuart-mill/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/kantianism/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/kantianism/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/kantianism/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/negative-and-positive-rights/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/negative-and-positive-rights/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/negative-and-positive-rights/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/rawl/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/rawl/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/rawl/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/rawl/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/negative-and-positive-rights/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/kantianism/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/john-stuart-mill/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/john-stuart-mill/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-bentham/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/immanuel-kant/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/tag/ethics/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/category/academic-writing-business-health-technology-and-education-related-topics/business-related-issues/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/category/academic-writing-business-health-technology-and-education-related-topics/business-related-issues/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/ethical-theory-and-its-application-to-contemporary-business-practice/http://ncys82.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/ethical-theory-and-its-application-to-contemporary-business-practice/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-sep_jsmill-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Varieties_of_consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-ShengSheng2004-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism_%28book%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Millhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Benthamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics


2/15

Introduction

When it comes to determining a set of rules, guidelines or principles to follow in the business

industry, many will agree that it is difficult for everybody to agree on one due to the complexities

of dealing with human nature. Therefore, to a certain extent, the field of business ethics tries tocome up with solutions to handle problems that arise within the business environment. On the

contrary belief, one should not be confused with the meaning of morality and ethical theory.

Morality has got to do with principles or rules that are used by people to decide between wrong

and right (Jennings, 2008). Meanwhile, ethical theory tends to provide guidelines that justify an

action to be right or wrong when settling human conflicts (Jennings, 2008). This paper is goingto discuss five different ethical theories. They consist of the utilitarianism, Kantian deontology,

justice, rights and ethical relativism theories. After that, these ethical concepts will be used toidentify some of the ethical issues that are presented in the article entitled News of the World:

What was it like on the inside? Finally, this paper is also going to come to a conclusion

regarding the effectiveness of business theories and practices.

Ethical theories

Utilitarianism

The utilitarian theory insists that an action is considered to be right or wrong based on theconsequences of the action and its effects on majority of the people (West, 2004). This means

that an action or practice is ethically correct when it produces more positive consequences in

comparison to negative ones to those who are involved. The forerunners for this school ofthought are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (west, 2004). Therefore, utilitarianism goes by

the rule that an action is evaluated to be ethical based on a set of rules or principles that can bring

the greatest usefulness to the greatest amount of people (Mill, 2006). This is the total opposite todeontological ethics whereby utilitarian believes that there should not be any compromising
http://www.compasscareer.com/wp-content/uploads/Business-Ethics.jpg


3/15

when it comes to determining the stand point of morality. Tools such as cost benefit analysis and

risk assessment are often depended on by utilitarian for decision making purposes. However,

there are some arguments regarding the greatest happiness principle that is set forth byutilitarianism. This is due to the difficulty in measuring unit of happiness or in order to determine

an action that will bring the most benefit comparing to other actions (Mill, 2006).

Kantian deontology

Kantian deontology stresses that an action is considered to be ethical if it can be accepted as auniversal law by every individual (Makkreel & Luft, 2010). It is first introduced by a philosopher

from Germany named Immanuel Kant. He believes that morality must follow a set of rules

without any exceptions. Therefore, this school of thought looks at categorical principles wherebythey are imperatives and instructions are given on the way one must act (Holzhey & Mudroch,

2005). Besides that, Kantianism also emphasizes on treating each other with respect. A person

should not be used as a mean to get to an end (Holzhey & Mudroch, 2005). This means that an

individual is bound or obligated to their duty to follow a set of maxim in order to determine

whether their actions are ethically right. However, there have been arguments on Kantiandeontology mostly due to the narrowness and inadequacy of this theory to handle various moral

problems or dilemmas (Makkreel & Luft, 2010). For example, there is no moral guidance orsolution when an individuals rights and duties crosses path.

Justice

Justice can be defined as the importance of getting fair treatments, equality and having rights

(Rawl, 1999). In order to grasp a better understanding on the theories of justice, this section isgoing to look at Nozicks libertarianism and Rawls justice as fairness. According to Nozick,

every individual has the right to own a piece of property as long as it is acquired fairly without

going against other peoples rights (Paul, Miller & Paul, 2005). In the world of economy andbusiness, libertarian believes in a free market where it is no influenced by government policies orpublic services. When an organization or individual is taxed by the government for their property

which they have obtained fairly, this action is considered to be unjust even if the money is

distributed to public schools, prisons or fire departments (Paul, Miller & Paul, 2005). However,many argue that absolute power that is encouraged by Nozick can bring about negative

consequences such as oppression. For example, it is justified for a country to export all its food

produce to another country in order to gain better profits and ignore the starvation experiencedby its people.

Meanwhile, Rawls theory of justice is called Justice as Fairness. There are two main principlesin this theory. The first principle advocates that every individual should have equal rights to a

fair distribution of social goods such as education, food and housing (Rawl, 1999). The second

principle stresses if there is any existence of social and economic inequalities, they should

benefit members of society who are at the most disadvantage (Rawl, 1999). Therefore, unlikeNozicks libertarianism, Rawl supports the redistribution of wealth and taxes to those who are

socially and economically disadvantage. He believes that this action is just and promotes

productive behavior. Many people argue Rawls theory of justice is too restrictive and pro-communism.


4/15

Rights

The rights theory finds that the best method to deal with ethical issues is to form a basis ofobligations in order to justify every individuals entitlement to human rights (Shaw, 2010).

Besides that, the rights theory also insists that human rights should be independent from the

influence of other factors. Human right is simply the natural rights belonging to every person byvirtue of being a human being (Shaw, 2010). There are two types of human rights; positive and

negative rights. Positive rights are obligations put open people to provide goods and services to

other people (Jennings, 2008). On the other hand, negative rights are obligations imposed on

people to stop them from interfering with other peoples freedom of action (Jennings, 2008). Oneof the major arguments pertaining to the rights theory is the lack of hierarchy to determine which

rights has more value than the rest.

Ethical relativism

Ethical relativism is a theory that decides whether an action is right or wrong solely based on themoral norms that adheres to the culture of ones society (Shomali, 2001). Therefore, an action

can be seen as ethically right in one society does not mean it will be in another. Unlike Kantian

deontology, ethical relativist believes that there is no such thing as a universal law when it comesto determining a set of maxim (Jhingran, 2001). Any sort of moral problems or disputes should

be judged and handled within the members of a society by coming to an agreement (Jhingran,

2001). However, there are many people who argue against the theory of ethical relativism.

Although moral practices may differ from one society to another but the underlying principles ofthese practices are the same (Shomali, 2001). As a result, skeptics consider the possibility of the

universalization of ethical values to be conceivable. For example, every society acknowledgesthat certain actions are deemed wrong such as the act of torture and slavery. Besides that,individuals from the same cultural background can hold different moral beliefs as well as

practices and decide that these actions are right or wrong (Shomali, 2001). Despite being widely

accepted by the Nazi society, the genocide of Jews is considered to be ethically wrong by manyGermans. This is proven when some of them try to help Jews to escape from their country.

Ethical issues in the article News of the World: What was it like on the inside?
http://www.ieet.org/images/uploads/025035ea6dbd328768e7b25c37f14057_thumb.jpg


5/15

The article News of the World: What was it like on the inside? portrays the vicious competition

among journalists and newspaper companies. When this situation happens, many individuals

resort to unethical business practices in order to get ahead from the competitors (Ferrell &Fraedrich, 2012). There are many reasons that can lead to unethical business behavior.

Therefore, this section is going to identify various ethical issues that happen in a newspaper

company called News of the World or NoW through the eyes of one of their journalists namedDan Arnold.

One of the most obvious ethical issues is the pressure from the supervisors to get a story nomatter what cost it takes (George, 2009). Journalists for this newspaper are pushed to obtain

newsworthy material by hook or by crook. Since the competition between NoW with Sunday

Mirror and People are tight, the company uses their journalists as a mean to get ahead and of

course, to obtain a larger profit margin. Journalists from this newspaper have to work extra hardand are moved from one project to another without any consideration for their health. This action

is considered to be unethical if it is based on Kantian deontology. He stresses that every

individual should be treated with respect and should not be used as mean to reach an end.

Besides that, the way NoW runs its company creates fear and paranoia in every journalists

(Geroge, 2009). Their employees often have to work throughout the week and sometimes lateinto the evening. Apart from that, they also have to be on the pager 24 hours a day and they are

expected to travel around the globe in a short period notice so that, they can catch the next big

story. As a result of living in fear of getting terminated from the best newspaper company,

journalists are often stressful and resort to drinking in order to curb with the pressure. Aside fromthat, the amount of time spend in offices also means they have neglected their families back

home. This is considered to be unethical based on utilitarianism as the companys action of

pushing their journalists to work harder does not bring the greatest benefit to the greatest numberof people. It only serves to bring larger profit for the companys shareholders while sacrificing

the happiness of their employees.

Not just that, people outside of NoW are scared of the journalists from this company and more

often not, give in to interviews and provide information that are required although they may feel

reluctant to do so (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2012). This action is considered to be unethical based onthe rights theory. These individuals or organizations have the freedom to say no to the

journalists from NoW without any negative consequences that may be inflicted upon them by the

massive influence of a successful company. Besides that, the action of firing journalists just

because their stories are not publish in the newspaper is also against human rights. It is not thejournalists faults if their stories are pushed aside by the newspaper committee for another piece

that seems to be trendier due to a sudden change in circumstantial events. These journalists have

also worked hard just like the others and deserve some sort of job security and protection from

the newspaper company.

In addition, there seems to be an unequal distribution of wealth between the profit gain by the

newspaper company with their employees as well as between the journalists (Ferrell &Fraedrich, 2012). For instance, journalists who successfully get their stories published are paid

more in terms of salary and are also secure from termination. Based on Rawls theory of jus tice,

this action is considered to be unethical. Every journalists in NoW has worked hard in order for


6/15

the newspaper company to succeed in the industry. Therefore, to be fair, salary should be equally

distributed among the journalists.

Furthermore, in NoW, journalists are awarded base on their success to get a juicy story for

publication. There are instances whereby the company is willing to do anything in order to obtain

the most current news. Sometimes, journalists are asked by NoW to offer cash and other bonusessuch as cars as well as housing property to informants. This act of bribery can be seen as

unethical based on the ethical relativism theory (George, 2009). In many societies around the

world, bribing is against their moral norms. Although the company may view this action as amean to get their hands on precious information, it may be conflicting to certain employees who

do not support bribery. However, they will have to push their norms aside to avoid being fired

from their jobs.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the different ethical theories that are relevant to the business industry

such as utilitarianisms pursuit of happiness, Kantian deontology in coming up with a universallaw, Rawls and Nozicks definition of justice, human rights as wellas ethical relativisms belief

in conforming to societys cultural norms (Shaw, 2010). Various academic literature provided bythese philosophers can be used as guidance when it comes to practicing business ethics.

However, there is no one discipline that can stand on its own. This is because the theory that is

presented by one school of thoughts is not sufficient or practical enough in overcoming amultitude of moral problems which exist in real life situation. Currently, many businesses choose

to adopt interdisciplinary theories in order to achieve better outcomes in handling ethical issues

(Shaw, 2010).

References

Ferrell, O. C. & Fraedrich, J. (2012).Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Cengage

Learning. Connecticut.

George, R. (2009).Business ethics. Prentice Hall. New Jersey.

Holzhey, H. & Mudroch, V. (2005). Historical dictionary of Kant and Kantianism. Scarecrow

Press. Maryland.

Jennings, M. (2008). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings. Cengage Learning.

Connecticut.


7/15

Application of utilitarianism to business ethics

Employees and EmployersIn act utilitarianism any action is permissible given thatit increases pleasure for the greatest number of peopleand a successful business does exactly this. Therefore,there is no correct way to treat employees. It iscompletely fine to exploit workers. Rule utilitarianismhowever differentiates between the material pleasuresof the consumers and shareholders and the the higherpleasures of taking care of employees. This implies thatthere should exist a code of conduct on how to treatemployees. Preference utilitarians look at all the


8/15

preferences and keeping workers happy is one of thecompanys preferences because it determines howmotivated people are and hence the productivity of the

firm. For this reason it is important to treat employeesproperly. Whistle-blowing is an acceptable activity forutilitarians because it produces pleasure for consumers,employees and the market.Business and ConsumersAccording to Bentham all of the pleasures of consumersshould be met as they are the biggest stakeholder and soa business should do everything they want e.g. lower

price, provide customer service etc. Mill would say,obviously consumer happiness is important but thisshould not override the pleasures of employees who workfor that business. Preference utilitarianism suggests thata mid-point should be found between this trade-off ofconsumers material preference and employees welfarepreferences. The Ford Pinto case is where Ford realised

that their batch of cars was faulty but still decided tosell them on the grounds that compensation was a lotcheaper. However, this raises questions aboututilitarianism. In principle utilitarianism should agreewhat Ford did. The consumers were happy because theyfound compensation and so was the shareholdershowever this means that the faulty cars could have

caused an accident and this makes utilitarianism a lesserconsumer friendly ethical theory.Business and GlobalisationThis section is mainly concerned with cheap labour usedoverseas in places like India and China. Bentham as wecan imagine would have no problem with this because


9/15

the pain of the group of employees is significantly lessthan the material happiness that consumers find fromthe products. Mill would be in total disagreement and

would forbid child/slave labour as he said before thewelfare pleasures of employees are much higher than anyfinancial and material pleasures. Singers belief in humanintrinsic worth would prevent humans from being utilizedto make cheap products overseas.Business and the EnvironmentThis is similar to when we look at issues in environmentalethics. The environment for Mill and Bentham has no

intrinsic worth only instrumental. Therefore, Benthamwould suggest that businesses would have every right toexploit the environment as long as consumer pleasurewas being met. Mill again would disagree and say, no,businesses are allowed to use the environment but inmoderation and they should not exploit it because caringfor the environment is a higher pleasure than destroying

it. Singer believed that the environment has intrinsicworth and so he argues that businesses should limit theamount of damage they do and care about theenvironment.Strengths

Businessmen and women like Benthams version ofutilitarianism because it provides an easy to use

cost-benefit way of working out what is right andwhat is wrong.

The purpose of satisfying the greatest good forgreatest number seems logical, practical andrealistic.


10/15

It is an egalitarian theory - no one person is worthmore. (Well consumers are in act utilitarianism.)

Weaknesses

The greatest good for greatest number, seems to befocused around greatest good for consumers whichmakes an unequal distribution of good arise.

Not always possible to predict consequences orcalculate utility particularly when large amount ofdata are required (particularly if this theory were tobe used in reality).

No common definition of good exists. It has some dangerous implications e.g. the

subjection of workers There are mixed views which means it does not fit

exactly in stakeholder or shareholder theory andmakes it confusing.


11/15

Ethics and Justice

Ethics concerns what is morallyright or wrong. Justice concerns what is legallyright or wrong.

Ideally, justice is ethical, and one assumes that doing what is ethical is legal. Justice cares about

peoples rights, and righting wrongs when those rights are violated. Although Cain denied beinghis brothers keeper, we expect ethical standards and administered justice to function as a

brothers keeper to someone (especially ourselves).

Justice can be restorative (compensatory), requiring the wrongdoer to restore the innocent victim,

to the extent possible, to the same (or a similar) condition the victim was in before the wrong

was committed (such as paying to repair damaged property, paying hospital bills, returningstolen goods, etc.). Or, justice can be punitive (penal), punishing the criminals, as a matter of

social morality, for the wrong committed (involving jail time, fines, loss of a drivers license, a

criminal record, or even capital punishment).

But sometimes the boundaries of what is morally right (ethical), individually and/or socially, arecontroversial. What about cloning, or artificial insemination, or various forms of contraception?

What about informing human subjects that they are being experimented on for scientific ormarketing research purposes? What about the use of deception by government officials

(rationalized as required for national security, or to avoid a riot, or to promote a social injustice

policy)? What about civil rights, discrimination, and the persecution of Christians?

The Bible provides knowable answers to all of these moral decision-making questions, either

directly or indirectly. The Bibles moral values are not like relativistic situational ethics. TheBible provides moral absolutes such as thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, and as ye

would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Rights, ethics and justice considerations


12/15

Rights, ethics and justice

considerations

Despite the clear value of linking indigenous knowledge to action on climate change, it isimportant to consider how engaging with the communities who hold this knowledge may raise

issues of rights, ethics or social justice. The ethically questionable expropriation of indigenous

knowledge in industries such as pharmaceuticals underscores the importance of meaningfulparticipation of indigenous communities in planning, approving and implementing processes that

involve their knowledge or resources. Indigenous peoples are often highly marginalised within

their own countries, and under-represented in international dialogues, meaning that questions of

power and voice in such forums are important considerations. These concerns are currentlyunder-examined in the field of climate change, but there are many lessons which can be drawn

from other fields such as biodiversity and conservation.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes' Social Contract

Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, and Hobbes Social Contract.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that argues that an action is right if and only if it conforms to the

principle of utility. Founded during the Victorian era, its founder, Jeremy Bentham, came to believe that

there was a need for society to rely on reason rather than metaphysics. The central tenet of

utilitarianism is what is called the Greatest Happiness Principle. Because the human beings are rational

self-interested creatures, says Bentham, they seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain.

Thus, a morally correct action is one which results in the greatest possible pleasure within a given set of

circumstances.

Set against utilitarianism is deontology. Deontologists are concerned with the concept of duty. That is,

they are concerned with fulfilling (what they believe is) their moral dutywhether or not it makespeople happy. In short, deontologists hold that right actions are defined by duty. Once we know what it

is that we are duty bound to do morally, then we can carry out this natural right action regardless of

the consequences. What matters, they argue, is that we do what is right what is right, and what is right

is that which conforms with moral law. One of the leading exponents of this theory is Immanuel Kant.

For Kant, right actions are those which are done purely and simply from a sense of duty and not by

following impulses, inclinations, or adherence to the Greatest Happiness Principle. Human beings, says


13/15

Kant, are, by nature, rational beings and as such need have a rational basis to their lives: they need to

know what make right actions right. Ethics, he maintains, is concerned with identifying moral

imperatives, and providing rational explanations as to why we should obey them.

Central to Kants duty ethics is the view that right actions are those actions that are not instigated by

impulses or desires, but by practical reason. Right action is right only if it is undertaken for the sake of

fulfilling ones duty, and fulfilling ones duty means acting in accordance with certain moral laws or

imperatives. To help us identify those laws which are morally binding Kant has provided us with the

ultimate calculus: the categorical imperative which states Act only in accordance with the maxim

through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. To the categorical

imperative, Kant offers a codicil which relates specifically to human will; so actthat you use humanity,

whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never

merely as a means.

Thus far we have seen that both utilitarianism and deontology hold different views in regard to what is

most natural ethical theory. For utilitarians it is the Greatest Happiness Principle, whilst for Kant it is

the Categorical Imperative. Now it is time to consider what has become known as the Virtue Theory.

It is in his Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle sets out his ethical theory (later to become known as Virtue

Theory): his concept of what it is, for human beings, to live well. For Aristotle, the end or final cause of

human existence is eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is most commonly translated as happiness, but amore

accurate translation is flourishing. Aristotle believed that the desire to live a fulfilled life is part of what

it is to be human. A eudaimon life is a life that is successful. It is important to relies that what Aristotle

means by happiness/flourishing has nothing to do with physical pleasure, but is an activity of the

mind/soul in accordance with virtue.(NB for the ancient Greeks, soul was a synonym of mind). For

Aristotle there are two parts to the mind/soul: the intellectual and the emotional. Correspondingly,

there are two types of virtue: intellectual and moral. Moreover, virtue, whether intellectual or moral, is

a disposition (a natural inclination) of the mind/soul, which finds its expression in voluntary action -that

is, it is consciously chosen. Moral virtue is expressed in the choice of pursuit of a middle course between

excessive and deficient emotion, and exaggerated or inadequate action: this is the famous doctrine of

the Golden Mean, which holds that each virtue stands somewhere between two opposing vices. Thus,

courage or fortitude is a mean between cowardice and rashness; and temperance is the mean between

licentiousness or profligacy and insensibility. Justice, or fairness,the most important virtue of the moral

virtues, is also concerned with a mean in the sense that it aims at each person getting neither more nor

less than his or her due. However, it is not like other virtues, flanked by opposing vices since any

departure from the just mean, on either side, involves simply injustice. Moral virtue prevents disordered

emotion from leading to inappropriate action. What decides, in any situation, what is appropriate action

and the correct amount of feeling, is the intellectual virtue of prudence or practical wisdom (phronesis):

this is the virtue of that part of reason that is concerned with action. The virtue of the speculative part of

the reaction is learning, or philosophic wisdom (Sophia): this virtue finds its most sublime manifestations

in more or less solitary contemplation (theoria). Supreme happiness, according to Aristotle, would

consist in a life of philosophical contemplation. However, whilst this would be the ultimate in human

fulfillment, it is also a life that is beyond the realization of mere mortals. The best we can aspire to is the


14/15

kind of happiness that can be found in a life of political activity and public magnificence in accordance

with moral values.

Following Aristotle, Warnock, in his The Object of Morality (1971), also takes the view that there is no

universal criterion by which our actions can be classified as either right or wrong. It is clear, says

Warnock, that moral principles may point in opposite directions, and I can pronounce no ground on

which one could pronounce in general which is to predominate another. Virtue theorists, then, accept

that human beings must be governed by moral principles, what they do not accept is the view that these

principles are bound by moral absolutes or imperatives. For virtue theorists, it is not whether one

answers to the demands of the categorical imperative, nor is it ones determination to opt for pleasure

over pain that determines whether or not one is ethical, rather it is ones natural disposition to lead a

virtuous life.

Whilst deontology, or duty ethics, can besaid to hold considerable merit, in that it advocates that

human beings should be treated as ends in themselves rather than means to ends, I would argue that, as

an ethical theory, it fails in that it looks on people, not as sentient beings, but as duty automatons.

Moreover, an ethical theory, such as Utilitarianism, that advocates that the happiness of the majority

takes precedence over the minority cannot be counted as a reliable ethical model. Thus, of the three

theories discussed so far, it seems to me, by virtue of its rejection of closure in relation to what it is that

determines right action, and its view that it is one's natural disposition to seek to lead a life of

excellence, Virtue Theory is the closest we have come to identifying an ethical theory that requires the

least alteration to allow us to lead an ethical life. However, before drawing this discussion to an end

there is anotherethical theory that deserves consideration. These are the ethical theory set out by

Thomas Hobbes in his magnum opus, Leviathan.

Central to Hobbes thesis is the view that the human desire for peace is the motive that moves humans

from the natural condition to civil society. Hobbes operates on the premise that all men are equal.

Nature has created men so equal in faculties of body and mind that, when all is reckoned together, the

difference between man and man is so slight that no man can claim superiority over another. Moreover,

as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret

machination, or by confederacy with others, that are the in the same danger with himself. In this,

hypothetical, state of equality there is no sovereign power, each man believing himself to be equal, is

motivated purely by self-interest to preserve his own life and liberty, and also to acquire power over

others. These desires are motivated by an innate impulse, or inclination, for self-preservation. In this

natural condition of humans, says Hobbes, there arises conflict: a state of war of all against all and the

life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Left to its own devices, says Hobbes,

mankind would eventually destroy itself. The struggle for power, for no other reason than self-

preservation and self-interest, defines the natural condition of humans. Altruism, compassion and self-

sacrifice find no place in Hobbes scheme of things. Hobbes wants to show that people in such a state of

anarchy will naturally want to move to change their circumstances. To show how they might go about

this he introduces four interrelated concepts: the state of nature, right of nature, law of nature, and the

social contract. He presents us with the concept of a situation in which man is in a state of nature: a


15/15

state without a sovereign or common power to enforce rules and to restrain behavior is naturally a state

that any reasonable man would want to move to a situation in which he could live in peace.

The ambition of Hobbes Leviathan, then, is to show how man can move from a state of nature to a state

of peace. For Hobbes, mans self-interest does not have to lead to a life of misery. By giving up certain

rights, and adhering to certain rules, the individual can move to a situation of greater comfort, harmony

and security. This can be achieved, says Hobbes, by surrendering certain rights to a sovereign power,

who, in turn, would guarantee the conditions necessary to live a harmonious and commodious life. This

could be achieved by entering into a social contract. If people were prepared to give up their individual

rights to a powerful authority which could force them to keep their promises and covenants, then a

peaceful, civil society could be formed. By virtue of the social contract a new political power could be

created. Thus established people would now have an obligation and duty to obey the sovereign. In such

a state, the sovereign would have to be empowered to use as much force as necessary to retain order,

any failure to do so would entitle the subjects to remove the sovereign power and return to a state of

anarchy. However, given that it is Hobbes view that people are naturally predisposed to prefer a state

of peace to a state of naturea state of war of all against all it is to be felt that they would soon

choose to elect a new sovereign and return to their harmonious and commodious lives.

utili tarin is m

Documents