What is the utilitarian approach to business ethics and examine its weaknesses?

Utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham and is a teleological theory where the moral value of an action can be judged by the likely consequences. The aforementioned Bentham lived in an era of great social and scientific change and unrest. He therefore, because of his social surroundings developed a theory that stated that right actions are those that produce the most pleasure for everyone affected and wrong actions consequently are those that do not. He coined the phrase ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ - which summarises his aim which was to iron out the deep inequalities of his time.

Bentham, being a Hedonist, believed that all humans naturally pursued pleasure and conversely tried to avoid pain. To measure this pain and pleasure, Bentham created the ‘hedonic calculus’, in which happiness was measured with seven different elements, including duration of happiness, the intensity of it and the purity of it. However if applying even one of these factors, let alone all seven, it causes a problem. For example it is impossible to know the duration of the pleasure or pain, because we would all quantify it differently, some are more susceptible to feeling pain, unlike others who are much stronger. We can never predict an accurate duration of the pleasure and a some argue that it is not possible for pleasure to be quantified.

If the probable pain of an action out weighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is morally wrong and visa versa. So, if rapists were to rape the same woman, then using the Hedonic Calculus, their pleasure would outweigh the woman’s pain. Therefore, it would become justifiable, although to most people this act of quite obviously morally wrong – and this is called the Swine Ethic. Thus, one of the obvious flaws is obviously that there is no protection for the minorities and going by what Bentham said himself ‘every person counts as one and not more than one’ than why should the person in majority get priority over someone in the minority?

John Stuart Mill was the Godson of Bentham and grew up a utilitarian, he adapted some of the ideas of the Bentham, Mill believed that happiness was the basic standard for utility and not pleasure. Mill adapted his form of the utilitarian theory so that it would reflect the fact that pleasures are not all of equal value, and that he took human nature into account. Mill distinguished that there were two forms of pleasure, higher pleasures and lower pleasures. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”. (Mill,) Higher pleasures were associated with the mind, such as mental disciple and cultural activities, where as lower pleasures were pleasures associated with the body such as satisfying the bodily need for food and sleep. 

As Henry Sidgewick stated though “In practice it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.” This is due to the subjectivity of “pleasure”. Not everyone will found this same things as pleasurable as others, so this would be very hard to apply. Also, so called “Single-factor” moral theories don’t work because life is more complex than this. We have “prima facie” duties - who would I save – my dad or a man with the cure to cancer? – My dad because my prima facie duty is to him. Such is the case with Bentham’s Utilitarianism, it would still be possible to justify such horrendous things as slavery, and so minority rights are still not protected.

Mill believed that there was a more positive role for laws in society, unlike Bentham who thought that laws were secondary. There are principles that work as a general means or securing the greater good. A good example would be lying, while there may be a good reason for lying in a certain circumstance, as an overall principle lying cannot be supported because in the end it does not support the greatest good for the greatest number. Mill acknowledged by breaking the rule may contribute to an individual’s short term happiness but is detrimental to long term happiness for all those concerned, this was then known as rule utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also exists in two different forms. Rule utilitarianism (linked to Mill) tries to give the greatest overall benefit and happiness to society; the best rule/law of conduct is found to bring the greatest amount of good so that everyone can follow it. However, this can cause problems if you use this rule in a place where it is not generally followed, as problems will be caused if you differ from the general population. Another problem, a problem which can be applied to both at and rule utilitarianism is that it is impossible to predict that consequences of an action, and therefore you cannot guarantee that happiness will result. There is still no guarantee of course that the minorities will be affected and how do you constitute what happiness is?

Act Utilitarianism links more the Bentham and determines that it is the final result that matters, therefore saying that the consequences justify the means. Although it has the benefit of being the most flexible, one problem of this is that the means may cause terrible suffering and anguish for many people but if the result is a good one then the actions are still, supposedly, morally good. Therefore Act utilitarianism can also be used to justify many horrible and evil things, such as killing millions of people to achieve peace for example. This opinion is shared by Alasdair Macintyre when he states ‘Utilitarianism can justify horrendous acts as being for the pleasure of the many’. Lastly, It is impractical to say that we should calculate the morality of each choice.

Preference Utilitarianism believes that you should take into account the preferences of the person concerned in each case until they are outweighed by the preferences of others. This allows people to define what pleasure and pain is for them. Peter Singer uses this to argue for the rights of animals alongside the theory of utility. In R.M.Hare argued for preference utilitarianism, he believed the “right thing” to do is to maximise the satisfaction of the preference of each individual involved.

There are a number of strengths to utilitarianism as a whole though. It encourages people to think of others all the time, preventing selfishness, leading to following arguably more moral paths of action, such as treating others as you would want to be treated. It benefits the greater good, which most of the time would be beneficial, as most people (you would hope) do not share the same sense of happiness as say a pedophile would. It is also based on the consequence of an action, which is what matters. Utilitarianism promotes democracy, well thought through decisions that would then link to morality and happiness for the greater good.

Among the weaknesses is that it is difficult, if not impossible to predict consequences, what is an important factor of utilitarianism. The theory also disregards motivation and goodwill, which is also an important factor in achieving happiness. Furthermore, it says that the majority is always right and does not protect the minorities, e.g. Nazis in WWII and the Jewish community, where they quite obviously were not right. Also it is very unrealistic. To expect people to act in the interests of others above themselves is probably wishful thinking more than anything, so it’s application because of this would undoubtedly be difficult.