Utilitarianism in Ethics: Core Concepts and Conflicts

Introduction to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical philosophy and stands as one of the most influential of its type. At its heart, utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy, meaning that the ethics of an action are determined by its consequences. Before the advent of utilitarianism, consequentialist philosophy emphasized the self — in particular through hedonism — but utilitarianism expanded the scope of consequences to include those affecting all of society. Today, that scope has arguably been extended further, so that outcomes for the environment and other non-human entities are also taken into consideration (Driver, 2014). The most common distillation of utilitarian philosophy is the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Core Concept

If the morality of a decision rests on its consequences, that places significant responsibility on the decision-maker to consider the full range of those consequences. In early consequentialism, the consequences considered were largely personal, making outcomes relatively easy to predict — but this approach neglected any duty of care toward those with whom one shares the planet. Other philosophical schools of thought focus on what is inherently right or moral, relying on the existence of universal laws that should not be violated. Decision-making is comparatively straightforward in those schools when the universal laws are known. Utilitarianism, by contrast, demands a broader and more complex accounting of outcomes.

Utility and Freedom

One of the formative thinkers of utilitarianism was Herbert Spencer, who was particularly concerned with the relationship between freedom and utility. The utilitarian viewpoint demands that the decision-maker consider the totality of consequences arising from his or her actions. A mental calculus must therefore be conducted, weighing the likelihood of different outcomes alongside their ethical merits. For example, the executives at Enron apparently believed they could commit fraud without being caught. It was entirely foreseeable that discovery would lead to severe legal consequences and the destruction of the company. In their ethical calculus, they must have judged the likelihood of being caught as low — because the consequences of exposure were always going to be catastrophic, including to themselves. Most people, when faced with the same opportunity, would have recognized that the greatest good for the greatest number lay in not committing fraud; the fraud ultimately delivered the greatest harm to the greatest number.

The problem with utility — especially when it is extended to the broadest range of external entities — is that it can substantially infringe on individual freedom in decision-making. Spencer sought to reconcile this tension between utility and freedom (Weinstein, 2013). A clear business example is the question of paying employees a living wage. In a labor market with full freedom, only the forces of supply and demand and relative bargaining power would affect wage levels. However, because of differential bargaining power, the result is typically negative for a great many people. The benefits that accrue to some — notably shareholders — are largely outweighed by the fact that low wages leave workers unable to escape poverty. Yet if companies are required to pay higher wages, this infringes on their freedom to negotiate the price of labor in a competitive market.

Utilitarian ethics typically involves such trade-offs. Not every decision reflects a zero-sum game, but there is always an element of resource distribution inherent in decision-making, which creates at least partial trade-offs in many cases. Adhering strictly to a utilitarian view may place someone in conflict over whose freedom must be curtailed in order to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number. Prisons illustrate this point vividly: someone's freedom must be removed entirely so that the broader public can be free from crime.

Conclusion

Utilitarian ethics is one of the major perspectives within normative ethics. The central idea is that the ethical decision is the one that delivers the greatest good for the greatest number. However, trade-offs are almost always involved, and such dilemmas are not always easy to reconcile. This challenge is particularly acute under utilitarianism because the actual consequences of decisions are often unknown and can be shaped by a wide variety of variables. Utilitarians acknowledge this difficulty and seek to address it by applying strict rational criteria to decision-making.

In a business context, this might manifest as a weighted assessment of likely consequences — determining the most probable outcomes and then selecting the course of action most likely to produce benefit. There is no opportunity for hindsight to argue that a decision was immoral: a choice that produced negative outcomes may still have been the least-negative option available, yet it could be characterized as unethical. This illustrates that even within a strictly rational utilitarian framework, significant nuance and uncertainty remain — and that these challenges are inherent to applying consequentialist ethics to real-world business decisions.

References

Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Weinstein, D. (2012). Herbert Spencer. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/#SpeLibUti