Utility and Utilitarianism

1. Utility and Utilitarianism & Moral Duty, Rights, and Justice

2. Utilitarianism • An ethical theory that holds that an action is right if it tends to produce, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action. Otherwise the action is wrong. • Utilitarianism adopts a teleological approach to ethics and claims that actions are to be judged by their consequences. • According to this view, actions are not good or bad in themselves. • Actions take on moral value only when considered in conjunction with the effects that follow upon them. • Utilitarianismdemands careful, objective, & impartial evaluation of consequences. • It is a widely used & often misused approach to moral evaluation. • A powerful tool of moral reasoning / a technique well worth mastering.

3. Utilitarianism and Business • This cost-benefit analysis is a form of utility calculation. • Business theorists use utility curves to plot the results of various actions, choosing those that maximize whatever it is that they wish to achieve. • This utility approach is widely used in many forms of general decision making & can be applied to moral issues as well as to business issues. • A defense of utilitarianism as an ethical theory is that it describes what rational people actually do in making moral decisions. • It explicitly formulates for them the procedures they intuitively and spontaneously use in moral reasoning.

4. Act and Rule Utilitarianism • Act utilitarianism holds that each individual action, in all its concreteness and in all its detail, is what should be subjected to the utilitarian test. • Rule utilitarianismholds that utility applies appropriately to classes of actions rather than to given individual actions.

5. Objections to Utilitarianism • Utilitarianism is ungodly because it proposes utility, rather than the Bible or God, as a basis for moral judgments. • Utilitarianism is unworkable because no one has the time to calculate all the consequences of an action beforehand. • Utilitarianism is unworkable because we cannot know the full results of any action, nor can we accurately weigh the different kinds of good and evil that result. • The calculation is artificial and not practical.

6. Applying Utilitarianism 1/2 • Accurately state the action to be evaluated. • I.D. all those who are directly & indirectly affected by the action. • Consider whether there’s some dominant, obvious consideration that carries such importance as to outweigh other considerations. • Specify all pertinent good & bad consequences for those directly affected, as far into the future appropriate, and imaginatively consider various possible outcomes & their likelihoods. • Weigh total good results against the total bad results, considering quantity, duration, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, & purity for each value (kind of good and kind of bad), and the relative importance of these values.

7. Applying Utilitarianism 2/2 • Carry out a similar analysis, if necessary, for those indirectly affected, as well as for society as a whole. • Sum up all the good & bad consequences. If the action produces more good than bad, the action is morally right; if it produces more bad than good, it is morally wrong. • Consider, imaginatively, whether there are various alternatives other than simply doing or not doing the action, and carry out a similar analysis for each of the other alternative actions. • Compare the results of various actions. The action that produces the most good (or least bad, if none produces more good than bad) among those available is the morally proper action to perform.

8. Deontological Approach to Ethics • Actions are morally right or wrong independent of their consequences. • Denies the utilitarian claim that the morality of an action depends on its consequences. • Moral rightness & wrongness are basic and ultimate moral terms. One’s duty is to do what is morally right & to avoid what is morally wrong, regardless of the consequences of so doing.

9. Kantian Moral Law • Since the moral law is a law, it issues a command or states an imperative: something that must be done. • The imperative is an unconditioned one. It states what everyone is to do since it is a command of reason. • The moral law binds unconditionally. Kant called the statement of the supreme principle of morality, the Categorical Imperative. • In contrast, a hypothetical imperative states that an action should be done if on the hypothesis that, one wishes to achieve a certain end. • Thus, “If you wish to do well in school, study!” • For an action to be a moral action: • It must be amenable to being made consistently universal; • It must respect rational beings as ends in themselves; and • It must stem from, & respect, the autonomy of rational beings.

10. Formalist Ethical Approach • An action is morally right if it has a certain form; it is morally wrong if it does not have that form. • The moral law at its highest and most general level states the form that an action must have to be moral. • But the moral law at this level, or the highest principle of morality, does not state what content an action must have to be a right action. It states only the form the action must have. • Such an approach is therefore called a formalist ethical approach.

11. Consistency in Universalization • Seeks to ensure that the rule, principle, or maxim of the action is internally consistent when made universal. • Since the test is a logical or conceptual one, it does not depend on the factual question of whether everyone does or would do the action.   • Kant’s condition of consistent universalization:“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

12. Respect for Rational Beings 2 4 6 8 10 2 2 4 6 8 10 2 Timer Started • “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 End Click to start Timer

13. Autonomy • Three aspects of morality are captured in the notion of autonomy: freedom, the self-imposition of the moral law, and the universal acceptability of the moral law. • This freedom, which we can call the rational freedom of self-determination, becomes moral freedom when we choose to act in accordance with the moral law. • Autonomy emphasizes the fact that moral beings give themselves the moral law. As ends in themselves, moral beings are not subservient to anyone else. • The third aspect of autonomy, the universal acceptability of the moral law, is a function of the fact that moral beings give themselves the moral law. The test is whether all rational beings, thinking rationally, should accept it regardless of whether they were the agents or the receivers of the actions.

14. Application of the Moral Law 1/3 • Accurately state the action to be evaluated, being careful not to specify it too narrowly. • Can the action be subsumed under some generally acknowledged (prima facie) substantive duty, such as not to kill, lie, or steal? • If so, and if there is only one such duty, that duty applies. • If there are actions about which there is doubt, go to step 3. c. Iftheactionfallsunder more than one of these,go to step 5; or describe the action as a universalizable exception, & go to step 3.

15. Application of the Moral Law 2/3 • Submit the action to the three tests: • Can the action be performed by everyone without any contradiction developing to prevent its continued performance? If no, the action is immoral. If yes, go to b. • Does the action respect people as ends and not as means only? If no, the action is immoral. If yes, go to c. • Is the action such that all rational people, whether on the giving or receiving end of the action, would will all people to so act? If no, the action is immoral. If yes, the action is prima facie moral.

16. Application of the Moral Law 3/3 • If the action is prima facie moral, does it seem to conflict with other general prima facie duties, such that both cannot be fulfilled together? If no, then the morality of the action is decided. If yes, go to step 5. • Consider arguments in defense of & against each of the prima facie duties being the actual duty in the case in question. The one with the strongest argument in its favor is the actual duty.

17. Special Obligations • We can divide special obligations into a great many kinds; three are of particular importance: • those obligations that come from special relations; • those obligations that come from particular actions we perform; • those obligations that come from the particular roles we occupy.

18. Moral, Human and Civil Rights • Rights are sometimes divided into negative and positive. • Negative rights require others to forbear acting in certain ways and to allow the bearer of the right to act without impediment. • Positive rights, on the other hand, require either the government or other individuals to provide the bearer of the right with certain positive goods or opportunities. • Moral rights are important, normative, and justifiable claims or entitlements. Moral rights also carry with them moral obligations. • Human rights are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled simply by reason of being human. • Civil rights are legal rights, and typically they apply to citizens and not to all human beings.

19. Theories of Justice • There are different kinds of justice. • Compensatory justice consists in compensating someone for a past injustice or making good some harm he or she has suffered in the past. • Retributive justice concerns punishment due a lawbreaker or evildoer. • Procedural justice is a term used to designate fair-decision procedures, practices, or agreements. CASE ANALYSIS

20. Types of Procedural Justice • Commutative justice demands that equals be exchanged for equals. Since commutative justice refers to justice in transactions or exchanges, it is of great importance in business. • In general, an exchange or transaction is just or fair if both parties to the transaction: • have access to all pertinent info. about the transaction; • enter it freely and without any coercion; and • benefit from the transaction.

21. Types of Procedural Justice • Contemporary philosopher John Rawls formulated an influential theory of distributive justice. • Each person is to have equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others. • Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a. reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage; b. attached to positions and offices open to all.

22. General Application of Rights and Justice1/3 • State clearly the moral issue to be resolved and whether it involves claims of justice or rights. • In some cases, both sorts of consideration are present. If so, can you either translate the moral norm expressed in rights terms into justice terms or vice versa? If you can, do so. • If rights are the dominant consideration, then determine for each: a. Is it accepted & acknowledged as a right? If not, how can it be defended? b. Who holds the right and against whom is it exercised in this case? c. What obligation does it impose on the one against whom it is exercised? d. Is there more than one right present in the case, if so, do they conflict.

23. General Application of Rights and Justice 2/3 • If rights conflict, determine which is most important & should take precedence in this case, presenting reasons for the precedent. • Having determined the dominant right in the case, is there any reason to think it might be overridden by other considerations? If so, consider them. If not, apply the right in question. • If justice is the dominant consideration, determine which kind of justice is pertinent. • If distributive justice or questions about the ordering of society or law are in question, apply Rawls’s two principles.

24. General Application of Rights and Justice 3/3 • If other types of justice are at issue, go behind an imaginary veil of ignorance and ask whether all affected parties, • if they did not know whether they were on the giving or receiving end of the action (or transaction or practice), • if they were adequately informed with the appropriate information, and • if they were thinking as rational people, would view the proposed action as acceptable. If so, the action is thus far just. If not, it is not just. • Determine if there are other considerations, consequences, orcircumstances that changes the application of that judgment. • If so, settle these to determine whether the action is just. • If there are none, the previous conclusion stands.

25. Exercise 1/2 • You’re bargaining on behalf of your client in an Original Position. • You have to come up with a principle of distributive justice which your client will be able to live under satisfactorily. • You know nothing of your client’s talents, abilities, gender, religious views, sexual orientation etc., except you do know that she or he is not disabled. • The other people in your group are in exactly the same situation. • You will have to think about how you will justify your choice to your client when you find out who he or she is. • Note: It has been previously agreed that basic liberties - freedom of conscience, religion, expression, association, & the rights to participate in public and political life, as well as the liberties associated with the psychological & physical integrity of the person - must be guaranteed to all, so you need not worry about violations of people’s basic liberty-rights.

26. Exercise 2/2 You have six principles from which to choose. Remember that these principles will govern your client’s entire life, and he/she will not be able to escape. • Laissez Faire: Markets operate without government intervention, except to protect private property and to place limits on oligopolistic and monopolistic markets. • Equality of Resources: Folks have about equal resources available over their lives. • Sufficiency: Everyone has a basic needs safety net guaranteed. Above that level, markets determine rewards, except as democratically elected legislatures choose to constrain them. (If you select this, prepare to explain what are basic needs & why). • Maximin: Inequalities of resources will be arranged so that the least advantaged will better off than they would be under any other arrangement. • Equality of Welfare: Resources distributed so everyone is basically equally happy. • You may, if you choose, formulate a compromise between principles, or formulate an entirely different principle. If so, be precise and be prepared to defend it. Appoint a scribe for your group. Also appoint a chair. Discuss the principles for 45 minutes. Then vote on the principles. You are aiming to achieve consensus.