Scribd
Upload
793 views

Business Ethics Assignment 8

To determine the moral course of action, utilitarianism considers four factors: 1) alternative actions available, 2) direct and indirect costs/benefits of each action for all involved in the foreseeable future, 3) choosing the alternative that produces the greatest sum total of utility. Utilitarianism is attractive because it matches intuitive views on policy evaluation, explains why certain actions are immoral based on long-term costs, and has influenced economics by assuming people maximize utility. The ecological ethic holds that non-human parts of the environment deserve preservation regardless of human benefits. Some utilitarians argue that inflicting pain on animals is as wrong as inflicting comparable pain on humans. Utilitarianism can support the

Uploaded by

Ryan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
793 views

Business Ethics Assignment 8

To determine the moral course of action, utilitarianism considers four factors: 1) alternative actions available, 2) direct and indirect costs/benefits of each action for all involved in the foreseeable future, 3) choosing the alternative that produces the greatest sum total of utility. Utilitarianism is attractive because it matches intuitive views on policy evaluation, explains why certain actions are immoral based on long-term costs, and has influenced economics by assuming people maximize utility. The ecological ethic holds that non-human parts of the environment deserve preservation regardless of human benefits. Some utilitarians argue that inflicting pain on animals is as wrong as inflicting comparable pain on humans. Utilitarianism can support the

Uploaded by

Ryan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

1. What is traditional utilitarianism?

With traditional utilitarianism, how do you determine


what the moral thing to do on any particular occasion might be? Include mention of the
four (4) considerations to determine what the moral thing to do on any particular occasion
might be.
Utilitarianism is a general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be
evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society. In any situation, the
right action or policy is the one that will produce the greatest net benefits or the lowest net
costs (when all alternatives have only net costs). In addition, traditionally, utilitarianism principle
holds that any action is ethically right if and only if the total outcomes of the same act are more
than the outcomes produced by any other action an agent could have done in its place. According
to utilitarianism only one action is right in the final analysis: the action whose net benefits are
much more when compared to the ultimate benefits of other alternative possibilities. Both the
foreseeable future and the immediate costs and benefits provided by each alternative to each
individual need to be taken into consideration together with other indirect consequences.
To determine what the moral thing to do on any particular occasion might be, there are three
considerations to follow:
You must determine what alternative actions are available.
You must estimate the direct and indirect costs and benefits the action would produce for
all involved in the foreseeable future.
You must choose the alternative that produces the greatest sum total of utility.

2. Why is utilitarianism attractive to many? Discuss three (3) reasons.


Utilitarianism is attractive to many because it matches the views we tend to hold when
discussing governmental policies and public goods. Most people agree, for example, that when
the government is trying to determine on which public projects it should spend tax monies, the
proper course of action would be for it to adopt those projects that objective studies show will
provide the greatest benefits for the members of society at the least cost. It also fits in with the
intuitive criteria that many employ when discussing moral conduct. Utilitarianism can explain
why we hold certain types of activities, such as lying, to be immoral: it is so because of the
costly effects it has in the long run. However, traditional utilitarians would deny that an action of
a certain kind is always either right or wrong. Instead, each action would have to be weighed
given its particular circumstances. Utilitarian views have also been highly influential in
economics. A long line of economists, beginning in the 19th century, argued that economic
behavior could be explained by assuming that human beings always attempt to maximize their
utility and that the utilities of commodities can be measured by the prices people are willing to
pay for them.
3. What is the ecological ethic?
Ecological ethics is the ethical view that nonhumans parts of the environment deserves to be
preserved for their own sake, regardless of whether this benefits human beings. Also we humans
have a duty to not harm them without sufficiently serious reasons. There are several varieties of
ecological ethics, some more radical and far reaching than others. Perhaps the most popular
version claims that, in addition to human beings, other animals have intrinsic value and are
deserving of our respect and protection.

Some utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, for example have claimed that pain is an evil whether it
is inflicted on humans or on members of other species. In addition, Singer argues that the pain
experienced by an animal is great an evil as a comparable pain experienced by human beings.
Singer concludes by stating that if it morally wrong to inflict the pain on a human, it is equally
wrong to inflict the comparable pain on an animal.
4. How does utilitarianism support the ecological ethic?
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory and therefore when evaluating ethics and
the environment they would look at the end result and not necessarily the action. Utilitarianism is
a teleological theory and would look at the purpose or the end goal of an action. With regards to
deforestation the end goal is to create space for new homes, particularly in Brazil and therefore
according to utilitarianism this is ethical because it brings great pleasure to those who are
provided with homes. Utilitarians believed that ethics could be found in what bought about the
greatest amount of pleasure and providing these homes would do just that. This also according to
Mill who was concerned with qualitative pleasure rather than quantitative pleasure is a good and
ethically just thing as having shelter, a basic human need, is a high quality pleasure. However,
the quantitative part of the theory with regards to deforestation seems flawed. It is inaccurate to
calculate whether more pleasure will be gained from homes being provided for those without
one, or whether more pleasure will be gained from preserving the forest, not only for those who
are concerned with the environment, but also for future generations who will have to pick up the
pieces. Instead it makes sense to select an ethical theory that is more practical in its method of
dealing with deforestation. Kant would state that we should not be allowed to pursue in
deforestation because if we made it a law of nature that trees automatically came down to make
room for development and homes it would not work, as we would soon run out of resources and

oxygen. This seems like a more practical way as it is absolutist and ethics based on pleasure
when dealing with this topic is unhelpful.
On the other hand Bentham can be helpful when dealing with environmental ethics. For
example in recent days even farming cod is not sustainable to stop those from becoming extinct
and Bentham would not only look at the pleasure of the humans involved but the animals too. He
would state that pain needed to be reduced before pleasure increased and the threat of extinction
would cause a great deal of instinctual pain as they have an instinct to survive. This seems fairly
sound as is preserves the life of the cod without causing pain to humans as it isnt necessary for
us to eat cod to be happy and survive. Furthermore Singer stressed that morality should not
consider humans only as this is speciesist and this is sound in this case as it prevents not only
cod, but animals such as tigers to be safeguarded by human hunters.
This is also helpful with regards to global warming as consideration for animals, certainly in the
case polar bears helps to protect the polar ice caps from melting. Utilitarians would state that
overall doing small things to help reduce the carbon footprint and therefore protect the
environment will bring about more pleasure than pain and therefore it the ethically just thing to
do. However whilst this may be true, act utilitarians would look at each case individually and if
on an occasion it brought about more pleasure to do something harmful to the environment then
they would allow this. Therefore it is better to consider a rule utilitarian that would see that the
overall greatest pleasure comes from preserving the environment and therefore would make it a
rule that this was prioritized.

Reference

Manuel G. Velasquez (2012) Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7th edition) Pearson Learning
solutions, 501 Boylston Street, Boston, MA.

You might also like