If the leaders of our national financial institutions had asked 'are these moral actions right, ethically speaking, from the point-of-view of my profession' rather than 'will these moral actions make money,' the world financial crisis would never have occurred.
Utilitarianism also tends to deemphasize minority rights -- but merely because a group is in the minority does not mean that it is engaged in a moral wrong. This can be seen in the current debate over gay marriage. Many people stress that marriage is 'naturally' between a man and a woman, simply because the majority of the population is heterosexual. However, by safeguarding only majority rights, African-Americans and other historically-discriminated against groups would never have been allowed to enjoy the promise of the American dream. Kantian principles demand upholding the moral integrity of all human beings, regardless of perceived consequences. During the American Civil Rights movement, many opponents of integration claimed that the will of the majority and its desire for segregation was justified because of the violence integration would cause. The predicted consequence over the long-term did not occur and now integration is the norm. Similarly, opponents to gay rights allege that dire consequences will ensue if gay marriage and other gay rights are legalized. They say more people will become gay, anti-gay violence will transpire and thus justify overlooking simple, eternal moral laws of human justice. On this debate,...
Like many people, I was brought up in a homophobic environment that was anti-gay. I was encouraged to feel disgust about gay marriage, and I confused my gut feelings with my moral compass. Now that my moral compass is rooted in principle, rather than emotions alone, I have come to support gay marriage. I had to look beyond the words and will of the majority of those around me, and find a principle that was universally true, rooted in humanity.
My distrust of gut impulses is also why I tend to disagree with virtue or 'human nature'-based ethics views on moral issues, although I have greater respect for this moral formulation than utilitarianism. Merely because someone has a good character does not necessarily mean he or she will act morally at all times. For example, many decent and 'nice' people who are good to individuals may, in theory, oppose minority rights because that is how they have been 'brought up,' as was once the case with myself, regarding gay rights. A nice person may engage in a blatantly unethical economic transaction because of an emotional desire to help his or her family. A moral foundation must be universal, and sound, rather than built upon majority rules and moral sentiment -- otherwise, it is merely situational, shifting, and built on sand.
