Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of
consequentialism.
Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest
number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most
common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and
benefits.
However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the consequences
of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights. For example, assume
a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a
liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the
expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would
consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.
So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has
obvious limitations.
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences
are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person’s
life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.
Two examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism. Utilitarianism judges consequences by a
“greatest good for the greatest number” standard. Hedonism, on the other hand, says something is “good” if the
consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the
result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain
situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are
arguably good.
For example, let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most
people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the
majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea
solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the means.”

Moral Philosophy
Moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that contemplates what is right and wrong. It explores the nature
of morality and examines how people should live their lives in relation to others.
Moral philosophy has three branches.
One branch, meta-ethics, investigates big picture questions such as, “What is morality?” “What is justice?” “Is
there truth?” and “How can I justify my beliefs as better than conflicting beliefs held by others?”
Another branch of moral philosophy is normative ethics. It answers the question of what we ought to do.
Normative ethics focuses on providing a framework for deciding what is right and wrong. Three common
frameworks are deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.
The last branch is applied ethics. It addresses specific, practical issues of moral importance such as war and
capital punishment. Applied ethics also tackles specific moral challenges that people face daily, such as whether
they should lie to help a friend or co-worker.
So, whether our moral focus is big picture questions, a practical framework, or applied to specific dilemmas,
moral philosophy can provide the tools we need to examine and live an ethical life.

Moral Reasoning
Moral reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events to determine what is right or wrong, and what people
ought to do in a particular situation. Both philosophers and psychologists' study moral reasoning.
How we make day-to-day decisions like “What should I wear?” is similar to how we make moral decisions like
“Should I lie or tell the truth?” The brain processes both in generally the same way.
Moral reasoning typically applies logic and moral theories, such as deontology or utilitarianism, to specific
situations or dilemmas. However, people are not especially good at moral reasoning. Indeed, the term moral
dumbfounding describes the fact that people often reach strong moral conclusions that they cannot logically
defend.
In fact, evidence shows that the moral principle or theory a person chooses to apply is often, ironically, based on
their emotions, not on logic. Their choice is usually influenced by internal biases or outside pressures, such as
the self-serving bias or the desire to conform.
So, while we likely believe we approach ethical dilemmas logically and rationally, the truth is our moral
reasoning is usually influenced by intuitive, emotional reactions.
 1. Utilitarianism Explained
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of
consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More
specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce. A key
point in this article concerns the distinction between individual actions and types of actions. Act utilitarian's
focus on the effects of individual actions (such as John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Abraham Lincoln)
while rule utilitarian's focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing).
Utilitarian's believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the number of good things
(such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the number of bad things (such as pain and
unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on
customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarian's think that what makes
a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.
The most important classical utilitarian's are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
Bentham and Mill were both important theorists and social reformers. Their theory has had a major impact both
on philosophical work in moral theory and on approaches to economic, political, and social policy. Although
utilitarianism has always had many critics, there are many 21st century thinkers that support it.
The task of determining whether utilitarianism is the correct moral theory is complicated because there are
different versions of the theory, and its supporters disagree about which version is correct. This article focuses
on perhaps the most important dividing line among utilitarian's, the clash between act utilitarianism and rule
utilitarianism. After a brief overall explanation of utilitarianism, the article explains both act utilitarianism and
rule utilitarianism, the main differences between them, and some of the key arguments for and against each
view.

1.1 Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory propounded by Jeremy Bentham. It proposes that actions
should be judged individually on their ability to bring about the ‘Principle of Utility’. That is, actions should be
done if and only if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
It's three central propositions are as follows:
Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences; nothing else matters.
In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is created;
everything else is irrelevant.
Each person’s happiness counts the same.
For act utilitarians, the consequences of an action are the primary bearers of ethical value. Therefore, utilitarians
are likely to promote sacrificing individuals if the principle of utility (achieving the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people) is produced. For example, act utilitarians are likely to support the execution of one
innocent child if that action saves the lives of five adults. This seems at odd with traditional ethical theories
which take a more deontological approach, for example, the ‘do not murder’ commandment propounded in
Christianity. Even if good outcomes can sometimes be achieved by violating rights, traditional morality would
not promote for them to be set aside so easily. For this reason, act utilitarianism does seem at odds with the idea
that individuals have rights.

1.2 Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the
greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the
rule of which it is an instance". Philosophers Richard Brandt and Brad Hooker are major proponents of such an
approach.
For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when
followed. In contrast, act utilitarians judge an act in terms of the consequences of that act alone (such as
stopping at a red light), rather than judging whether it faithfully adhered to the rule of which it was an instance
(such as, "always stop at red lights"). Rule utilitarians argue that following rules that tend to lead to the greatest
good will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if
better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.

2. Origin and Nature of the Theory

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of
philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned
throughout the history of ethical theory.
Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the
morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general
claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely
in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of
the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider
the good of others as well as one's own good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like
Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about
‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’.

2.1-2 Bentham’s Utilitarianism; Mill’s Utilitarianism

In the notion of consequences the utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the act, whether
arising after the act has been performed or during its performance. If the difference in the consequences of
alternative acts is not great, some utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According
to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that
a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred
manner.
In assessing the consequences of actions, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something is
held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their worth
from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e, they
analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic
value and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two
alternative actions and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic
calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained, could sum up the units of pleasure and the units of
pain for everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure
of the overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps
not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the
values of the effects of alternative courses of action.
3. An Analysis of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill, is an essay written to provide support for the value of utilitarianism as a
moral theory, and to respond to misconceptions about it. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the
principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He argues that pleasure
can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in one's higher faculties should be weighted
more heavily than baser pleasures. Furthermore, Mill argues that people's achievement of goals and ends, such
as virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness.
Mill argues that utilitarianism coincides with "natural" sentiments that originate from humans' social nature.
Therefore, if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these
standards as morally binding. Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never
desire anything but happiness. He supports this claim by showing that all the other objects of people's desire are
either means to happiness, or included in the definition of happiness. Mill explains at length that the sentiment
of justice is actually based on utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness.
The theory of utilitarianism has been criticized for many reasons. Critics hold that it does not provide adequate
protection for individual rights, that not everything can be measured by the same standard, and that happiness is
more complex than reflected by the theory. Mill's essay represents his attempt to respond to these criticisms,
and thereby to provide a more complex and nuanced moral theory.
Mill's argument comprises five chapters. His first chapter serves as an introduction to the essay. In his second
chapter, Mill discusses the definition of utilitarianism, and presents some misconceptions about the theory. The
third chapter is a discussion about the ultimate sanctions (or rewards) that utilitarianism can offer. The fourth
chapter discusses methods of proving the validity of utilitarianism. In his fifth chapter, Mill writes about the
connection between justice and utility, and argues that happiness is the foundation of justice.

4. States and Citizens Responsibility

4. Business's fascination with Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a moral theory, which works as a form of consequentialism helps individuals to assess whether
an action is good or bad. Some of the moral philosophers associated with this theory include Jeremy Bentham,
David Hume, Henry Sidgwick and many others. People who ascribe to the classical utilitarians’ school of
thought consider actions right if it maximizes the overall wellbeing of society and wrong if it does not maximize
the overall wellness of the society. According to the theory, an action is good if it is for the good of the greatest
number of people. It characteristically encourages individuals to act in whatever ways they want as long as their
actions lead them to the greatest levels of wellness. The theory associates wellbeing with happiness. Therefore,
an action is considered good if it brings joy to the most significant number of people in society and vice versa.
The theory of utilitarianism can be applied in business in many ways. To begin with, business persons who wish
to use this theory must first understand its four components. The application of this theory can either be positive
or negative. The first element is consequentialism, which is the understanding that the wrongness or rightness of
actions is entirely determined by their actions (Mack 64; Suikkanen 1). Businesses can apply the concept of
consequentialism in their operations even though it may contradict the moral and ethical systems that are in
place. For instance, businesses that commit themselves to the principle of consequentialism may encourage their
employees to act as they wish as long as the essential outcome will be to the benefit of the organization. Every
business focuses on making and increasing more profits as its primary goal, which may lead them to use the
means, which may be considered immoral, unethical or illegal. For example, a business may manufacture and
sell substandard and unsafe products in their quest for more.
Lesson 5
1. Rawl’s ‘Justice as Fairness’
2. An Evaluation of Rawl’s Principles
3. Distributive Justice
Distributive justice is a concept that addresses the ownership of goods in a society. It assumes that there is a
large amount of fairness in the distribution of goods. Equal work should provide individuals with an equal
outcome in terms of goods acquired or the ability to acquire goods. Distributive justice is absent when equal
work does not produce equal outcomes or when an individual or a group acquires a disproportionate amount of
goods.
As one could probably see in the definition of distributive justice, there are many principles at play. This lesson
will focus on three: equality, proportionality and fairness.