utilitarianism?example

Probably the most widely understood and commonly applied ethical theory is utilitarianism. In an organisational context, utilitarianism basically states that a decision concerning business conduct is proper if and only if that decision produces the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals.“Good” is usually defined as the net benefits that accrue to those parties affected by the choice. Thus, most utilitarians hold the position that moral choices must be evaluated by calculating the net benefits of each available alternative action.Importantly, all the stakeholders affected by the decision should be given their just consideration.

Strengths Weaknesses

- Useful for decision-making - May ignore wrongs

- Flexible - May conflict with justice

- Recognizes interests of all - Difficult to design rules

- Resolves conflict of interest

If the benefits are sufficiently great and the problems with the side effects sufficiently limited, then the action of the pharmaceutical company may be justified on act utilitarian grounds. For act utilitarians, rules are just rules of thumb. For rule utilitarians, rules are determinate of right and wrong.

A second formulation, rule utilitarianism, looks at whether the option or choice conforms to a rule that attempts to maximize the overall utility. Rule utilitarians, then, focus on the rules for acting rather than on individual actions themselves. For a rule utilitarian, a rule is morally correct when it provides more social good than any alternative rule.

EXAMPLE 1: To use an example from banking, suppose a banker is considering whether it is right to foreclose on the mortgage of a widow and her children. To consider that action in isolation, it is fairly easy to show on act utilitarian grounds that foreclosure would cause more pain than not foreclosing. However, suppose we had a rule that said that banks should not foreclose whenever the action of foreclosing would cause more harm than foreclosing. If that rule were adopted, then banks would be reluctant to lend money. Thus, the rule permitting foreclosure on widows is better for society than a rule that forbids such disclosure.

EXAMPLE 2:One very good example is the airlines industry. We all know

that business class passengers pay a premium price to get all the luxuries of that class that the airline offers. Now, if you know the huge difference between the price of an economy class ticket and a business class ticket, do you think that the extra amenities that are being offered to the business class travelers, traveling for the same amount of time as the economy class, really worth the exorbitant price? Now, once you come to delve deeper into this, you'll realize that the premium price charged from the business class travelers - the ones who can easily afford it - are actually used to ease out the burden of deficit that the airline would have to bear if it is to allow the economy class passengers the opportunity for air travel at a lower price. The principle also plays in case of discriminatory pricing strategies of companies when pricing products for different customer segments having different income levels.

Ethical Relativism?example

What is ethical relativism? “Ethical relativism” is the view that what is right and wrong can only be determined or justified relative to the standards of the individual, group or culture in question. More specifically, “cultural ethical relativism” can be stated as follows: 

Ethical standards vary from culture to culture; therefore, there are no universal moral standards which apply across cultures.

 EXAMPLE 1: On this view, female genital mutilation (FGM) is not wrong in Somalia because the practice accords with local tradition, but it is deeply wrong here because it is contrary to Canadian gender equality (amongst other reasons). Ethical relativism appeals to many people. But as we shall see, it leads to a number of inconsistent and unsatisfactory conclusions. First, let us make an important distinction, for there are two main types of ethical relativism: • Descriptive relativism notes that there are differences among cultures’

ethical practices and standards without saying anything about their justification.

• Prescriptive relativism goes further and claims that people ought not to apply the standards of one culture to evaluating the behaviour of another culture. This is usually called “cultural relativism.”

 If it is true that people ought not to judge the morality of another group’s behaviour, then people in the developing world cannot criticize the much higher per capita consumption of resources in the developed world. Why? Because the standards of the developing world cannot be used to judge the behaviour of people in other parts of the world.

 Example 2: Or, in the context of business, imagine that a certain business tortured or murdered its employees whenever they did a poor job. Even if all of the employees of that company approved of the practice, surely this does not make it morally permissible! It is just plain morally wrong to murder your employees, regardless of what anyone believes.

Example 3 : If morality were relative to one’s culture, there would be no basis for claiming that the practice of any other culture is morally wrong, no matter how atrocious their deeds seemed to us. For instance, if there were a society that practiced cannibalism, there would be no basis for us to condemn their actions. Of course, since OUR society believes cannibalism is morally wrong, it IS morally wrong for us (according to relativism. But, so long as their society APPROVED of cannibalism, it would NOT be morally wrong for THEM to cannibalize each other