Introduction
Utilitarian is normative ethics based on consequentialism or the outcome of an action. The theory originated in the 18th and 19th centuries through the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The philosophers considered ethics as the actions that promote happiness and minimizes harm. They focused on the outcome of the action and whether it would bring pleasure to the majority (the greatest good) (Audi 593). Otherwise, any action that produced the reverse of happiness would be considered unethical. From the perspective of the majority, the act should produce the consequence to everyone affected by it, not only the performer. The ethical idea differs from egoism, which proposes that the actor should pursue self-interests and not be necessarily bothered by the effect on others. It also differs from ethical principles that focus on the act itself and ignore the consequence and those that disregard the motive of the actor. According to utilitarian, a person can do the right thing from a bad motive. Although utilitarian focuses on the pleasure to the majority, controversy surrounds its applicability, such as in making organizational decisions and achieving real-life ethical results due to the challenge in balancing pleasure and pain.
What is Utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism (one type of consequentialism) is one of the frequently discussed ethical theories in the literature. The theory focuses on the determination of the rightness or wrongness of an act. It considers the good or bad depending on the consequence instead of the intention of the actor. Although many views of utilitarianism exist, the most held conception is that the morally good act is one that generates the most good. An act that produces pain regardless of the motive is unethical. While many approaches are used in spelling out the generalized claim, the most important thing is that the principle is a type of consequentialism. People should understand the rightness of an act purely by the kind of outcome it generates. For example, a person might have bad motives, but his/her action ends up producing the most good. In such a situation, the act is considered ethical through the utilitarian perspective. Generally, the act should produce the utmost pleasure to be considered ethical.
From the ethical perspective, consequences arise at any point in the performance of the act. It includes all the good and bad that occur. It could be produced after the commission of an act or during its performance. Therefore, at whatever point the action generates results that cause pleasure to the majority, it is considered ethical. However, the focus is on the outcome, not the act itself, which might be regarded as limited by some critics of the theory. Some utilitarians fail to consider the choice between two actions that have different consequences as being an ethical issue (Conway and Gawronski 217). Mill suggested a classification of acts as right or wrong solely by considering their outcomes. Nonetheless, the consequences should be of such importance that an individual would desire to see the actor compelled to perform the right action (Mill, 8). Various critics have presented their views regarding the plausibility of the theory and its applicability in practical situations in different fields.
Critical Assessment of the Proposal
Utilitarianism is one of the most controversial ethical theories. Most proponents of the theory suggest that it has a practical application contrary to moral intuition. It can be used in situations that require a consideration of utility. For example, it can be used in policy-making when deciding the action or policy that will generate the greatest good to the people. The theory is useful in various areas of life when one should consider the consequences of their actions on other people’s lives. As a result, it helps to avoid actions that might have adverse effects on individuals and society. Many management decisions can use the theory to determine the right action for others, especially in the management-worker relationship. As a result, the theoretical model figures in management theory, particularly in providing the rationale, from a stakeholder’s point of view (Audi 593). Generally, the theory suggests that corporations exist to serve the interests of their stakeholders. Therefore, the most ethical action in the field is the one that maximizes pleasure for the stakeholders, especially shareholders. Nonetheless, questions arise regarding the acceptance of all actions as ethical just because they generate the most pleasure to the majority.
Although utilitarian is a major ethical principle in various aspects of life, it is not favored by other critics who question its application in achieving real ethical situations. The theory is treated tacitly in various aspects of business ethics. However, most social scientists do not support it or believe in its application in practice. The focus of the criticism of its plausibility relates to the perspective that actions are ethically right as long as they generate the greatest pleasure for a majority (Audi 593). The question remains, what if the majority have the wrong motive in performing the action. Would it still be ethical? From the utilitarian point of view, the action would still be ethical because it causes happiness to the majority. After all, the motive or intention of the actor does not matter. For example, the management might violate workers’ rights to bring happiness to the stakeholders. In such a case, the theory suggests that the administration will be acting within its ethical standards.
The question regarding the applicability of the theory in practice remains unanswered in various studies and researches. For example, one can argue that utilitarianism is isomorphic with cost-benefit analysis. The idea explains why the theory appeals to some people but is unagreeable to others. Since cost-benefit analysis is aggregative, and that decisions are not limited, by the beneficiary apart from as far as it targets some individuals or groups that could receive the most pleasure out of their consequence (Conway and Gawronski 217). For instance, a critic might consider the financial profit as opposed to the welfare of the people. The situation takes into account the net balance of happiness and pain. From the ethical perspective, the situation does not indicate the applicability of the theory because the action generates both pleasure and pain. While using such a structural analogy is a strength of the theory, for others, it affirms a misgiving of inadequate sensitivity to ethical variables (Audi 594). Therefore, the controversy surrounding the theory never ends and its plausibility depends on which side of the debate one stands.
Furthermore, the use of the theory creates a major issue for philosophers and practitioners in various fields. The issue relates to the clarification of the criteria used to determine the good or bad. What determines the pleasure or pain? How are they measured? These are some of the questions that cause a problem when using the theory in practical settings. People wonder whether these variables are sensory in nature (Mill 13). For instance, the query would be if suffering is the only determinant of pain that emerges from the action. The question is how suffering and pain are related theoretically or empirically. Another challenge relates to whether to use self-reports of pleasure and pain to determine the consequences of an action (Audi 596). Generally, it is hard, and almost impossible, to measure pain and pleasure objectively. The challenge questions the plausibility and applicability of the theory in determining the ethicality of an action or decision in practical settings.
Conclusion
The utilitarian theory has been applied since the 18th and 19th centuries to determine the ethicality of human actions. The normative theory relates to the consequences of an action as opposed to the actual act or the intention or motive behind it. Although some people feel that the theory is applicable to determine the ethical nature of decisions in various areas of life, its plausibility is questionable. One cannot potentially measure pain or pleasure with objectivity. Besides, it would actually be unethical to believe that a detrimental motive could cause an ethical consequence. For example, if the management violates or ignores the rights of workers to produce the greatest pleasure to stakeholders, the action is itself unethical. Therefore, the theory might support the implementation of adverse decisions in an attempt to generate satisfaction to the targeted people. Pleasure for some people might occur at the detriment of others in society. Therefore, utilitarian theory should not be used in totality without considering the cost of the decision to generate pleasure to the majority.
Works Cited
Audi, Robert. “Can Utilitarianism Be Distributive? Maximization and Distribution as Criteria in Managerial Decisions.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, Oct. 2007, pp. 593–611. doi:10.5840/beq20071741.
Conway, Paul, and Bertram Gawronski. “Deontological and Utilitarian Inclinations in Moral Decision Making: A Process Dissociation Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 104, no. 2, 2013, pp. 216-235. doi:10.1037/a0031021
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). New York, NY: Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
