Normative Ethical Theory: Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology Philosophy 223 Normative Ethical Theory: Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology

Our Task If we are going to make any headway towards our goal of increasing our capacity to manage the moral dimensions of our business lives, we have to develop answers to this question: “What constitutes an acceptable ethical standard for business practice, and by what authority is the standard acceptable” (18). We considered (and considered reasons to reject) two possible standards: relativism and egoism. We also identified some features of any theory that would be successful.

A Family of Theories Consequentialism is the name given to a family of more specific normative ethical positions, all of which share the conviction that it is the consequences of actions which determine their moral worth. All of these positions are committed to the following claims. Right action is to be understood entirely in terms of the overall intrinsic value of the consequences of the action compared with the overall intrinsic value of the consequences associated with alternative actions an agent might perform instead. An action is right iff its consequences would be at least as good as the consequences of any alternative action that the agent might instead perform.

Implications There are a number of important implications of these claims. Consequentialist theories are value-based. They are comparative theories. They make specific reference to alternative actions and the rightness or wrongness of any action is dependent on the value of the consequences of those actions. The consequentialist account of right action is a maximizing conception. Consequentialism is an impartialist ethical theory. We have to consider the consequences for everyone and everyone counts equally.

It’s all in the family The various specific forms of consequentialism share a commitment to these basic claims. They differ in their Theory of The Good (19): the identification of the value which the ethical theory picks out. The TG of Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic value with human welfare or happiness (the expression of human welfare).

Utilitarianism The basic idea of U is that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by the their effect on human welfare or happiness, with maximization and impartiality assumed. Measure of this effect is called Utility: the net value of the consequences of actions. Result is the Principle of Utility, the theory of right action of utilitarianism. An action is right iff its performance would likely produce at least as high a utility value as would any other alternative action.

What Makes You Fare Well? An important issue that all utilitarians must address is how to understand human welfare. Classical utilitarians (J. S. Mill, J. Bentham) identify happiness (and thus human welfare) with pleasure and the absence of pain. For this reason they are labeled Hedonistic Utilitarians. How does adopting the hedonistic point of view alter the PU?

Mill’s “Greatest Happiness Principle” We can see how specific accounts of “the good” produce specific instances of the principle of utility by thinking about the consequences of Mill’s identification of the good as happiness. Mill’s TRA is called the Greatest Happiness Principle, and it states, “Actions are right…in proportion to their tendency to promote happiness or the absence of pain, and wrong insofar as the tend to produce pain or displeasure” (19).

The GHP and Business There are some clear points of contact between Mill’s Utilitarianism and values typically articulated in the business world. The maximizing implications of U, when approached in terms of efficiency are clearly congenial to business interests. Cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, management by objectives are all business tools significantly influenced by U. The TG of classical utilitarianism is no longer as influential as it once was, but has been replaced by a “preference theory.” Finally, one particularly attractive feature of U for business people is it’s explicit reference to measurement.

Utilitarianism in Action Applying consequentialism requires calculation and comparison. Calculation can refer to an overt calculus or a more informal estimation. The explicit goal of the calculation is to identify the action/rule that maximizes the specified value(s). Comparison must include all parties affected (in a relevant or significant way) by the proposed action.

Act v. Rule Utilitarianism Consideration of the role of calculation leads to an important distinction between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism: “in all situations one ought to perform that act that leads to the greatest good for the greatest number” (21). Rule Utilitarianism: in all situations one ought to act in accordance with the rule that leads to the greatest good for the greatest number.

Evaluating Utilitarianism Remember our evaluative features? Determinacy: produces normative verdicts Consistency: in normative verdicts Intuitive Appeal: verdicts should be consistent with our intuitions. Explanatory Power: ability to account for considered moral judgments. How does Utilitarianism do?

Criticisms of Utilitarianism One sort of criticism often directed at U concerns the difficulty of measuring the good(s) which the theory highlights. This problem is often cited as an advantage of preference utilitarianism. Another sort of criticism concerns U’s inability to account for goods other than the specified one. Problem of Justice

Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) revolutionized philosophical ethics. Prior to Kant, people sought the origin of morality in the natural order, in the ends proper to human beings, or in feelings. In contrast, Kant seeks the conditions of the possibility of morality and locates them in autonomy: the will’s capacity for self-legislation. Why in a capacity of the will? Because a good will is intrinsically good, other features of our character are potentially turned to evil, and as a matter of psychological fact reason is not particularly suited to produce happiness.

Deontological Ethics Due to its focus on the will, Kant’s ethics are deontological: actions are morally right to the extent that they derive from motives of duty, as opposed to motives of inclination. When we think about moral obligation, he argued, what we need to account for is its categorical character, the fact that it commands us absolutely.

What’s with the Categorical? Kant is convinced that everything in nature acts according to laws. We are unique in that we do so consciously, in obedience to laws of reason. These laws of reason Kant calls imperatives. Following his account of obligation, Kant makes a distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. A law of reason (imperative) is hypothetical when the will is conditionally commanded relative to some end (think prudence). A categorical imperative, on the other hand, commands absolutely, that is unconditionally.

What about the TRA? Reflection on the categorical character of moral obligation leads Kant to a TRA that is also his fundamental moral principle: the Categorical Imperative. Applying the categorical imperative to proposed actions provides a principle of moral evaluation, directing us to the right actions. There are a number of formulations of the CI. We are going to look at two: one that emphasizes the moral dignity of persons, and one that focuses on the universalizability of moral claims.

CI: Humanity Formulation CIHumanity: An action is right iff the action treats persons (including oneself) as ends in themselves rather than as means to our ends. There is both a negative (don’t treat them as means) and a positive (treat them as ends in themselves) requirement contained in the formulation. The positive requirement is captured by Kant with the notion of dignity, which all rational agents possess by virtue of their being rational.

CI: Universal Law CIUniversal Law: Act always in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action to be universal law. Maxim: the subjective principle of an action (In situation X, I will do Y to accomplish Z). Despite the proximity of this formulation to the Golden Rule, it is really quite different. The UL formulation imposes a consistency requirement. You should only act in such a way that everyone else should act and that it is possible for them to act.

Criticisms of Kantian Ethics Some have argued that Kant’s focus on the categorical nature of moral obligation results in an overly narrow conception of morality. What is the role of moral emotions or sentiments like sympathy? Another common criticism is that Kant’s ethics are too rigorous. The example of lying.