Utilitarianism

1.

In the previous module, we learned that reasoning with the rigorous moral principles derived from moral theory is more like utilizing a general approach to coaching sports, rather than deriving cut-and-dry results from the application of an algorithm. And just as there are different general approaches to coaching, so there are different general approaches to moral theorizing. They have significant overlap—it is not as though you’re going to find a plausible moral theory that licenses obviously objectionable practices, such as the regular use of slavery, torture, or deception—but they suggest different basic moral principles as the foundation for ethical reasoning. They are all sufficiently tested to be defensible, which means that you should seriously consider each of them as you hone your ethical reasoning abilities. But they do differ, in sometimes very important ways, and you need to take these differences seriously and begin deciding which moral principles you wish to incorporate into the foundation of your ethical reasoning.

We’re going to explore four general approaches to moral theory:

1. utilitarianism
2. Kantianism
3. care ethics
4. virtue ethics

In each case, we’ll pay especially close attention to the principles each approach supplies for our ethical reasoning. For each of them, we’ll consider how we could apply these principles from the perspective of Kathleen Fitzgerald in the Wells Fargo case, to develop our practice of engaging in principle-based ethical reasoning.

2.

Utilitarianism starts with some common convictions about the importance of treating people benevolently—that is, looking out for one another’s interests and well-being. This is a foundational feature of our moral convictions. We think it is important, not just to look out for ourselves and do whatever will benefit us, but also (or even instead) to take account of everyone else impacted by our decisions.

When we’re interacting with a small group of people with whom we’re quite familiar, enacting these convictions normally doesn’t pose too much trouble for us. You know each other well enough, and the impacts of your decisions are obvious enough, that it’s pretty clear which actions will best promote the interests of everyone involved. Of course, this doesn’t mean that treating your friends well is always easy or without sacrifice; we often need to make personal sacrifices for the sake of our friends. The point is simply that, amongst small groups of people who know each other well, it is usually straightforward to determine how to act benevolently—in ways that promote everyone’s interests overall.

Matters are quite different once we find ourselves in larger groups of people who do not know each other well, as is typically true of work teams in companies. Decisions still must be made that impact everyone, such as how to assign the tasks for new projects, how to distribute rewards such as bonuses, or codes of conduct to impose. But the managers making these decisions typically are not (and probably should not be!) good friends with all of their employees, not to mention the impacted individuals who are external to the company (such as consumers). Moreover, given the large numbers of individuals involved, there will almost always be tradeoffs that need to be made amongst them. No decision will benefit all of them, at least not equally. Some will benefit, others will not and may even be harmed. This means that, if managers are to make decisions benevolently, they need some basis besides personal acquaintance for determining which of their choices will best promote the interests or well-being of the employees overall. It won’t be as simple as doing what’s best for a small group of friends.

Utilitarianism provides a principle to help with this. Here’s what it says:

Let’s unpack this a bit. First, in saying “choose the option,” the utilitarian principle is drawing our attention to the fact that, whenever we make a choice, we need to be mindful of the options from which we’re choosing. We need to pick the option that is best, not merely one that seems good enough or not so bad. Second, in saying “maximize the amount of happiness,” the utilitarian principle assumes that we can quantify what it is for people to be benefited – happiness – or harmed – pain. Any given choice will cause a certain amount of happiness and/or pain in each person impacted by it, and we can add up the total amount of happiness and pain created by each of our potential options.

We can represent this somewhat simplistically by imagining that happiness can be quantified with positive numbers and pain with negative numbers. For each option, add up the total amount of happiness created amongst impacted individuals and subtract the total amount of pain caused. The option with the highest number is the one that the utilitarian principle requires us to take.

The utilitarian principle thus provides a clear, arithmetical approach to acting benevolently. It doesn’t matter if our action impacts one person or one million. It provides the same basic instruction: Choose the option that creates the most happiness and least pain overall.