John and Utility Ethics The utility ethics raised in John's situation focus on his doing what he believes to be in the best interest of his family: "You know that we can barely pay our bills," he tells his wife as a way to justify his theft. He further attempts to justify stealing from the company that employs him by making a number of points: 1) the company can afford it, 2) he has earned it for his years of service, 3) he is not sufficiently recompensed for all the work he does for the company. Ultimately, John concludes that he is doing what is best for the family even if, admittedly, "it might be wrong." The utilitarian principle, in John's mind, outweighs any other ethical concern; applied in John's case, it would hold that John's actions are moral in so far as they produce the greatest good and/or happiness. Clearly, John believes his actions promote happiness for his family -- though this is certainly debatable, as it is evident that his wife is more upset and worried about the avenue of additional income than would be the case were peace and happiness really obtained. Likewise, John does not appear to be taking into consideration the happiness of the company that employs him. While he rationalizes that the company can afford to lose merchandise and thereby "pay" him more, the company would surely fire John if it found out what he was doing. This would not only cause him to lose out on steady income of well-more than his theft is providing, it would also put a stain on his...

Thus, John's behavior is far riskier than he is letting on and the utility that he supposes to be supporting his behavior is simply not there as he imagines it to be.
In this sense, when all the facts, stakeholders and ideas concerning the greatest common good are factored in, it becomes clear that the utility ethics regarding John's case are against him rather than for him. Utility ethics put at their core the attainment of the greatest common good as the pathway to happiness. A number of variables must be defined of course before proceeding -- such as happiness and common good (both who is included in "common" and what is meant by "good"). John defines happiness as added income, theft as the utility by which that happiness might be obtained. Yet, his wife might define happiness as stability; his company might define happiness as loyalty, honesty and profitability; his community may define happiness as adherence to the law, and so on. The point is, John has not coordinated with anyone else or considered how his actions might apply to the whole; in utility ethics, the commonality of the behavior -- the effect on the whole -- is what is to be considered. John's actions benefit himself and his family only -- and even then only in a narrow sense (for the risks far outweigh the rewards -- for example, John could go to jail if caught, and then his family would be in severely…