What Is
Utilitarianism?
A theory of morality which advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and opposes actions that cause unhappiness or harm is known as Utilitarianism.
A utilitarian philosophy would aim for the betterment of society as a whole when directed toward making social, economic, or political decisions. Utilitarianism would say that an action is true if it leads to the happiness of the best number of individuals during a society or a gaggle.
Understanding Utilitarianism:
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in two late 18th and 19th-century British philosophers, economists, and political thinkers associated with Utilitarianism which is a tradition of ethical philosophy.
According to Utilitarianism an action is wrong if it tends to produce sadness, or the reverse of happiness and it is right if it tends to promote happiness—not just the happiness of the actor but that of everyone affected by it.
At work, when you take actions to ensure that the office is a positive environment for your co-workers to be in then you display utilitarianism.
From the Founders of Utilitarianism:
In 1789 Jeremy Bentham in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation describes his "greatest happiness principle" as "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure."
Then added,"It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."
In 1863 John Stuart Mill published his own work on Utilitarianism after absorbing and reflecting on Jeremy Bentham's thoughts on utilitarianism. The key passage from his book says the creed which accepts the greatest happiness principle as the foundation of morals utility holds those actions.
And are in right proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness are intended pleasure,
and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.
Utilitarianism's Relevance in a
Political Economy:
The progenitors of utilitarianism spawned variants and
extensions of its core principles in liberal democracies throughout the
centuries. Some of interesting questions that came in their minds include: What
constitutes "the greatest amount of good"? How is happiness defined?
How is justice accommodated?
Policymakers are generally proponents of free markets and some base level of
government interference in the private lives of citizens so as to assure safety
and security in today's Western democracies.
Although the acceptable amount of regulation and laws will always be a topic of debate, political and economic policies are geared primarily toward fostering the maximum amount well-being for as many people as possible, or at least they should be.
Where there are disadvantaged groups that
suffer income inequality or other negative consequences due to a
utilitarian-based policy or action, most politicians would attempt to find a
remedy.
In Business and Commerce:
The one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number is the most ethical choice as per Utilitarianism.
As such, it is the
only moral framework that can justify military force or war. Moreover, the way
utilitarianism accounts for costs and benefits makes it the most common approach
to business ethics.
The theory asserts that there are two types of utilitarian ethics practiced in
the business world, "rule" utilitarianism and "act"
utilitarianism.
"Rule"
Utilitarian Ethics:
An example of rule utilitarianism in business is tiered pricing for a product or service for various sorts of customers. In the airline industry, for instance, many planes offer first, business, and economy-class seats.
Customers who fly in first or business class pay a way higher rate than those in economy seats, but they also get more amenities—simultaneously, people that cannot afford upper-class seats benefit from the economy rates.
This practice produces the very best good for the best number of individuals. And the airline benefits, too. The costlier upper-class seats help to ease the financial burden that the airline created by making room for economy-class seats.
"Act" Utilitarian Ethics:
An example of act utilitarianism might be when pharmaceutical companies release drugs that are governmentally approved, but with known minor side effects because the drug is in a position to assist more people than are bothered by the side effects.
Act utilitarianism often demonstrates the concept that “the end justifies the means”—or it's worth it.
In the corporate workplace:
Most companies have a proper or informal code of ethics, which is formed by their corporate culture, values, and regional laws. Today, having a formalized code of business ethics is more important than ever.
For a business to grow, it not only must increase its bottom line, but it also must create a reputation for being socially responsible. Companies also must endeavor to stay their promises and put ethics a minimum of on par with profits.
Consumers are trying to find companies that they will trust, and employees work better when there's a solid model of ethics.
On a private level, if you create morally correct decisions at work, then everyone's happiness will increase. However, if you choose to do something morally wrong—even if legal—then your happiness and that of your colleagues, will decrease.
The Limitations of Utilitarianism:
In the workplace, though, utilitarian ethics are difficult to realize. These ethics can also be challenging for the business culture, where a capitalistic economy often teaches people to specialize in themselves at the expense of others.
Similarly, monopolistic competition teaches one business to flourish at the expense of others.
Utilitarianism tends to make a black and white construction of morality which is kind of a limitation of utilitarianism. In utilitarian ethics, there is not any reminder gray—either something is wrong or it's right.
Utilitarianism also cannot predict with certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad—the results of our actions happen in the future.
Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values like justice and individual rights. For example, say a hospital has four people whose lives depend on receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver.
If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs might be harvested to save lots of four lives at the expense of his one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it a suitable course of action, including an ethical one.
So, although utilitarianism is unquestionably a reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it's obvious limitations.
Written by: Gourav Chowdhury
.jpeg)
0 Comments