The theory of utilitarianism - Essay Example

14 May 2008 Utilitarianism Utilitarianism theory is referred to by some as the consequentialist ethical theory. It is expressed in the form that asserts that people should always act so as to produce the greatest ratio of good to evil for everyone. This has great appeal in the area of welfare economics and does not differ dramatically from the philosophies and beliefs of Keynes, Pareto, and Pigou; some might even include Marx in this category. The utilitarians believe that when choosing between two actions, the one that produces the greatest net happiness should be the one chosen. Where most of them disagree with one another is in the area of how this principle should be applied. There are also several stated weaknesses in this concept. It ignores actions that appear to be wrong in themselves; it espouses the concept that the end justifies the means; the principles may come into conflict with that of justice (utilitarianism seems to associate justice with efficiency rather than fair play); and it is extremely difficult to formulate and establish satisfactory rules of application. Utilitarianism manifests itself in two major forms. The stronger of the two is so-called act-utilitarianism. Under this system, the moral agent considers the consequences of only the action under consideration (Smart and Williams 11). The second system is called rule-utilitarianism. Here the moral agent considers a set of rules by which life should be lived. The basis of accepting or rejecting a rule is whether the consequences of everyone following the rule will result in the maximum probable good consequences. Rule-utilitarianism may be regarded as a weaker form of utilitarianism than act-utilitarianism (Bailey 28). A rule-utilitarian, when confronted with a situation in which he believes that abiding by the rule will not in the present case be most beneficial, will simply modify the rule. Ultimately, this would end logically in one rule, "maximize probable benefit," which is the position of the act-utilitarian. Had the person who answered the door in Nazi example been a rule-utilitarian, a possible rule might have been "do not lie." Yet the rule could have been modified to "do not lie except to save innocent human life." (Smart and Williams 32). Most professionals are already familiar with a system that acts very much like utilitarianism: cost/benefit analysis. In the cost/benefit system the manager attempts to balance the probable costs of taking a particular course of action with the probable benefits to be derived. Most people realize that cost/benefit analysis becomes more and more sticky as the analysis moves away from measurability in terms of dollars. Measurement of benefits has been particularly problematic. Writers on this subject have attempted to balance the costs of companies reporting on their adherence to social responsibility with the costs of not doing so. Bentham was classified in England as utilitarian with the application of hedonism on the social level; that is, happiness is the end of all human existence. He based his social reform on what he considered right and wrong, which in turn was developed from his definition of utility (Rosen 19). Utility was measured on a pain-happiness relationship, which was reduced to a common denominator: money. This reduction to the common factor of money was necessary because different people have different utility for the same item. Although his ideas were considered controversial at the time, they were later accepted by many, as can be seen in a recent study conducted by the American Council on Education of more than 200,000 students. The survey showed that more than three quarters of college freshmen now think that getting rich is what will make them happy and what life is all about. Twenty years ago, only 39 percent indicated that affluence was an essential goal; at that time, a "meaningful philosophy of life" was what mattered -- a goal that now motivates only a minority of students (Rosen 21). Critics of utilitarianism have pointed out many flaws. One is the apparent ability of utilitarianism to justify the imposition of great suffering on a few people as long as benefit is derived by many people. A second, more practical criticism centers around the difficulty of defining the probable benefits, called "utility," and somehow summing them (Rosen 92). Great disagreement may be generated over which consequences are in fact "good," which consequences should receive greater or lesser weight, and what probability should be assigned to different future consequences (Bailey 29). As in the hypothetical case of the Nazis at the door described by Smart and Williams (23), most people respond to this situation in the same way. In this case the response is an indication that they would refuse to accept the offer of the Central American lieutenant. Notice that this decision runs entirely against an ethical system based upon utilitarianism. The clear-headed utilitarian would note that the option of shooting one person appears to have less evil consequences than the other apparent options-refusing to take part, shooting the lieutenant, and so forth--all of which would result in the death of at least nine people as opposed to one. Both utilitarianism and deontologism may be criticized in that neither seems to by itself describe the "ethics" found in today's society. Perhaps this may be explained by the fact that most of us are not ethical theorists, and people therefore borrow portions of ethical responses from both major systems. Another possibility is that another system may better describe the reality of ethics. Researchers describe a modern ethical theory that attempts to improve upon the way people practice ethics in society. Hedonistic utilitarianism is not an ethical model that thinking people take very seriously any more. The ethics of office romance should involve things other than personal pleasure and career success. The profession is a community, after all, and its ethics should rise to a higher plane (Bailey 31). Opponents of social responsibility argue in an analytical rather than descriptive fashion. That is, they approach the entire issue from the standpoint of cost/benefit analysis. Most professionals are quite comfortable with this type of analysis. Cost/benefit analysis is a concept that is deeply rooted in utilitarian ethics. In this analysis the utility defined--that is, the good people maximize--is material wealth expressed in terms of dollars. Simply stated, the cost of an action and compare it with the sum of the economic benefits expressed in financial terms. Under a utilitarian criterion people should undertake a project where the economic benefits exceed the costs (Bailey 43). A careful analysis of the social responsibility issue on this utilitarian ground provides disappointing results for its proponents. From the standpoint of the corporation, the costs of placing any new system into place are substantial company must consider more than the immediate costs of designing and implementing such a system (Scarre 134). Also included should be the possible consequences (costs) of publicly reporting the company's actions in the social responsibility arena. An honest reporting of these matters could bring consequences that are not in the best interests of the owners or managers of the corporation. These might come in the form of possible calls for increased government action in the affairs of the company, possible action against the company from special interest groups, or lawsuits from parties who believe they have sustained injury from the company's actions. Moreover, these costs of implementing social responsibility are fairly easy to measure using conventional business forecasting methods (Scarre 135). These weaknesses of the practical application of utilitarianism readily appear in the use of cost/benefit analysis to assess the usefulness of social responsibility. The weakness of a non-utilitarian principle is encountered in the fact that business has traditionally dealt solely with financial information (Scarre 138). The ethical benefits in cost/benefit analysis are often difficult to translate into financial terms. Thus, many professionals are uncomfortable entering into this realm. Cost/benefit analysis presupposes that material wealth is the sole good to be considered. Thus an arbitrary, non-utilitarian method is assumed at the beginning of the utilitarian reasoning process. Yet reasonable people do not really believe that the accumulation of wealth is the only criterion to look at with respect to good and evil (Scarre 140). In sum, a change in the underlying way people view the role of the corporation in society can enable us to more realistically assess not only the need for socially responsible action but also the ways science can assist managers and outside readers of reports in the tough choices with respect to these actions. Modern critics of utilitarianism also note that ultimately utilitarianism must seek non-utilitarian answers on assigning boundaries and values around the measurement of activities and values associated with the calculation of utilitarian systems. All these matters serve to cause what appears to be an exceptionally practical system to become less and less practical. Works Cited 1. Bailey, W. Utilitarianism, Institutions and Justice. Oxford University Press, 1997. 2. Rosen, F. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, 2003. 3. Scarre, G. Utilitarianism. Routledge, 1996. 4. Smart C.C. and Williams, B. Utilitarianism For and Against ( Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Read More