Traditional utilitarianism and ethical decision-making frameworks

Utility

What is traditional utilitarianism? Considerations to determine what the moral thing to do is.

Traditional utilitarianism refers to a major ethical position, and is at least implicitly treated in all business ethics courses. It is held widely among a majority of non-relativist social scientists, even if isn't favored by them. One can also find utilitarianism in theories of management, for example, as offering one of many rationales for a corporation's stakeholder view. A widespread representation of utilitarianism denotes it as an idea that ethically-correct actions are those which generate the greatest happiness or good for the majority (Audi, 2007).

The morality ethic begins with initiation of involvement with the particular, the concrete, and the local. Four major elements exist in this tradition, which offer a sound basis for development of a decision-making framework that can act as a counterbalance to the current philosophy of disengagement or disburdenment (Anthony, 2012).

i. Inclusiveness

Ethical decision-making is twofold. Any deed (e.g. selecting a medical strategy) is right only if, when compared to other alternatives, it positively impacts or disseminates net benefits to at the very least, the same number of people as any other alternative; and on reaching this figure, it maximizes total happiness (or produces at the very least, the same amount of total happiness as other substitutes which positively impact individuals). The action should reach the majority and do for them the 'greatest good', or at the very least, the same amount of good that other substitutes can do, taking care not to eliminate anyone from attaining the act's benefits (Audi, 2007).

ii. Preference for Pain Reduction, Other Things Being Equal

One may give more import to pain reduction than gain enhancement, when other elements are equal. This idea can be applied as follows: Research by a pharmaceutical company may suggest that it may accrue equal profits from manufacture of a muscle-building drug for the healthy, or from manufacturing an arthritic pain reliever. One may hope that ethical individuals (particularly, but not essentially, utilitarian) would choose based on the best manner to do good. The indicated preference for a pain reliever, though minimal, would be substantial; its role would be that of a tie-breaker, when the number of affected individuals for both alternatives is identical, but reduction of pain is greater for one instance. Then, the preferable choice for maximizing good would be treating arthritis (Audi, 2007; Anthony, 2012).

iii. Attentiveness This implies awareness of what is happening and the influence of one's actions on others' welfare and capacity. That is, attentiveness refers to a sensible disposition and a representation of what is good and how our world must be (as evidence one's values). It reproaches being unthinking, rote, or mechanical in one's interactions with those who demand moral understanding (Anthony, 2012; Audi, 2007).

iv. Qualified Aggregation

As vital as one may consider inclusiveness in ethical decision-making, it isn't the only crucial ethical concern. Especially if, with conventional utilitarians, one may consider pain and pleasure as the only fundamental negative and positive values, one may have a different approach to the benefits issue. Above all, one may want to generate as much overall medical value as possible- the foremost priority will then be maximizing overall good. Nevertheless, the next priority may be instituting a policy that aids as many people as possible without sacrificing the overall medical benefit, whether for prudential or moral purposes, or both (Audi, 2007).

2. Why is utilitarianism attractive to many?

Utilitarianism's most explicit argument is that this manner of thinking is a sort of extension of self-interest or egoism to groups. Different individuals possess different interests. Thus, utilitarianism is a trade-off between different people's interests, maintaining that the important factor is their 'real' interests, and not what somebody else believes ought to be their interest. Utilitarianism makes use of all the principles we are inclined to believe somebody must apply to further their personal interests to the maximum possible extent, extending them to collective interests. Utilitarian morality states that what benefits individuals is determined by what it is they value, and not what somebody else values. This concept appeals to individuals who are of the view that people's well being must be decided by people themselves, instead of what is decided by someone else as being beneficial to them. Non-Utilitarians generally maintain that valuing aspects other than well-being is naturally obvious. Exactly what other things should be valued, however, varies significantly depending on religion, culture and personal prejudices. One element that almost everybody agrees is of value is welfare, independent of perception (Velasquez, 2006; Audi, 2007).

Another argument in favor of utilitarianism is that this philosophy is the sole simple, powerful and rigorous morality system that arises exclusively from comparatively elementary principles. Many individuals hold the opinion that a morality system must reflect one's moral intuitions on wrong and right; however, the particulars of these intuitions differ somewhat between individuals. Nearly universal, basic intuitions can support utilitarianism. Examples of such intuitions include: welfare is beneficial; if a thing is good, one should possess it as much as they can; and, everyone must be accorded equal consideration. Above all, utilitarianism builds a consistent, strong philosophy that is applicable in all situations. The precise outcomes aren't always in accordance with the distinct moral intuitions of people; however, this also holds good for all philosophies, which aren't the same as "do what your intuition says is right." Philosophies that are non-utilitarian are also backed by entreaties to a number of moral intuitions, however not in virtually such a consistent or basic manner. Non-utilitarians are inclined to demand a whole load of intuitions, some among which are very specific. This is done at various stages of arguments, when it appears convenient. Often, it seems that inference and reasoning from the appealed intuitions are applied by philosophers only as long as the outcomes they desire are produced; when this doesn't happen, their appeal moves onto another intuition, moving the argument elsewhere. These shortcomings aren't shown by utilitarianism (Velasquez, 2006; Audi, 2007).