Explain each of the following aspects of Utilitarianism:

the greatest happiness principle

consequential thinking in contrast to deontological thinking.

Greatest happiness principle

This is the principle that the right action is that which leads to the greatest happiness

of the greatest number, this can also be stated as the principle of utility: an action is

moral if it promotes utility and immoral if it promotes the reverse. Mill defined utility as

happiness and the absence of pain.

The minimum requirement for an action to be right is that it must generate happiness,

but moral choices should maximise the happiness that can be generated.

Mill required that the highest quality of happiness should be generated. Bentham

treated all pleasures as equal and focused on the quantity of pleasure generated by

the action.

Bentham believed that humanity was ruled by the two ‘sovereign masters’ of

‘pleasure and pain’. This means that only pleasure/happiness is intrinsically good and

only pain/unhappiness intrinsically bad. Happiness is therefore the only goal which is

worthwhile in itself.

Consequential thinking in contrast to deontological thinking

In contrast to deontological thinking, there are no actions that are seen as intrinsically

right or wrong, no acts that should be done or not done as a matter of moral duty.

Actions are right or wrong solely because of their consequences and only these

should be taken into account when deciding what should or should not be done.

Good intentions, obedience to an existing moral law (if that law is not itself based on

utility) do not make the action a right action.

The consequences of an action, in the case of Act Utilitarianism, or a law, in the case

of Rule Utilitarianism, must be considered before the act takes place. This may be

achieved through the application of the hedonic calculus.

The consequences taken into account are both short and long term and the interests

of all beings able to experience pleasure and pain should be taken into account. For
many utilitarians that includes non-human animals.

Explain both Kant’s theory of the importance of duty and how it might be applied

to an ethical issue of your choice. (Do not choose an environmental issue.)

On duty

Duty for Kant is a universal obligation. What establishes duty is the willing obedience

to universal laws derived from universal maxims.

As good will is the only thing that is good without qualification, and because a good

will leads one to do one’s duty for duty’s sake, duty is central to Kant’s theory of

ethics.

These are discovered by contrasting the instrumental good of hypothetical

imperatives with the intrinsic good of categorical imperatives.

Duty is linked to the good will: to have a good will is to do one’s duty simply because

it is one’s duty.

Duty is good in itself, regardless of consequences or feelings.

Applied to an ethical issue

The theory could be applied to any moral issue. Students are likely to select issues

such as war, abortion, euthanasia, and so on. Whichever issue is selected, students

should show how duty functions in Kant’s theory of ethics.

With abortion, for example, it might be said we have a duty to oppose abortion as one

could not logically universalise a principle which advocated the killing of foetuses.

However, the application of Kantian principles to some modern issues is not clear,

since, for example, Kant made no definitive pronouncement about the ethical status

of embryos. Students may show awareness of the difficulties in making precise

judgements about what Kant would have decided.

‘The strengths of Kant’s theory of ethics outweigh its weaknesses.’

How far do you agree?

In support

Agent-centred ethical systems do not have to second-guess consequences, and are

not exposed to individual preferences and emotions.

The principle of universalisability appeals to reason and offers a logical way of

deciding what is good.

By making a distinction between duty and inclination, Kant makes morality more than

just a matter of personal preference. A society following Kantian principles would be

morally secure.

Kant’s theory rights some of the wrongs of consequentialist ethics as it does not allow

for humans to be used as a means to an end. It promotes intrinsic human rights.

Other views

It is generally seen as unacceptable to fully ignore the consequences of one’s

actions. Kant’s theory is out of touch with the realities of the modern world.

Some duties seem to conflict. For example, in war, some people have to die in order

to protect the majority.

Kant dismisses the role of emotion in ethical thinking, but as humans are emotional

beings this is not easy to do and thus renders the theory impractical as a realistic

motivation for ethical behaviour.

The principle of universalisability is not easy to determine. If I lie to the axe murderer,

which principle am I making universal, lying or lying to axe murderers?

Explain the differences between Kant’s theory and teleological approaches to

ethics.

‘Teleological approaches’ need only be understood generally, since an in-depth

understanding of specific teleological approaches such as utilitarianism or situation ethics

is not on the specification.

Understanding of the main differences between Kantian ethics and teleological

approaches will be demonstrated through the use of reasons and examples, such as:

Kant emphasises rules derived from universalisability (the categorical imperative)

whereas in teleological systems the emphasis is on the consequence of

obedience to the rule rather than on the intrinsic value of the rule itself.

Kantian ethics emphasises duty, for example the duty not to lie. In contrast,

teleological approaches explain why it might be acceptable to lie: when lying

would produce a better outcome. An example here might be Kant’s murderer at

the door.

Kant is an absolutist, whereas teleological approaches are relativist. Kant’s rules

have no exceptions; teleologists tend to be situational.

For Kant, right and wrong are determined primarily by reason, whereas

teleological approaches tend to emphasise the role of experience in achieving the

best outcome.

Some students might take the view that different systems of ethics have both

deontological and teleological features, although perhaps one aspect is favoured

above the other. In particular, some might say that Kant’s system does have

teleological features, for example in its focus on the kingdom of moral ends or the

summum bonum

Students might refer to some of the following:

‘Deontological’ comes from the Greek deon, meaning duty, or obligation, so

normative deontological theories of ethics are those which judge the rightness of

an action to be in the adherence to moral rules / laws; moreover the rightness or

wrongness of actions do not depend upon the consequences of those actions.

The moral rules associated with deontology take the form of commands, or

imperatives, by which certain actions are forbidden (e.g. Do not murder), made

obligatory (e.g. Help others wherever possible) or permitted (such as

supererogatory actions beyond the call of duty, e.g. putting yourself in great
danger in order to save someone else’s life).

Deontological theories are agent-relative, so that for example making the rule Do

not murder implies that you have a duty not to murder; parents have duties to

their children, but this does not necessarily entail that parents have the same

duties to other people’s children. Deontological theories often stress the

autonomy of the moral agent, by which the agent can assess which duties are his

or her responsibility and which are not.

Some deontologists are absolutists, arguing that certain actions are right or

wrong regardless of the intentions or consequences behind them; others are

non-absolutist, such as W.D. Ross’s modification of Kantian theory with the

concept of prima facie duties.

Some deontological theories are secular, others religious (e.g. Divine Command

Theory, where the force of the laws/rules derive from the nature and commands

of God as opposed to the autonomy of moral law and the moral agent).

Kant’s theory of ethics is autonomous, secular, absolutist and deontological.

He argues that morally good acts are those which are done from duty. This

argument follows from his insistence that the highest good has to be good

without qualification. Those things that are habitually regarded as good, of which

the commonest is pleasure, are not the highest good, because, for example, they

are usually desired as means to an end, whereas the highest good should be

desired as an end in itself, and the only such thing is a good will.

It is the motive or intention of the agent that makes an action morally good, and

not the consequences of the action. A moral agent has good will when she acts

out of respect for the moral law.

Kant’s deontological commands are defined by the categorical imperatives.

What Are the Major Ethical Issues Business People Face?

Employee Behavior and Legal Issues

There are legal consequences for some unethical employee behavior. For example, if a supervisor
discriminated against an employee based on her gender, religion or ethnicity when making
recommendations for a promotion, legal action could be sought. Small business owners can help to
prevent ethical problems stemming from employee behavior by drafting a clear, attorney-reviewed set
of standards that dictate behavior policies for employees at all levels.

Employee Working Conditions

In addition to employee behavior, there are a number of ethical issues business people must consider
about employee working conditions. For example, employers must be aware of the safety of their work
environment and if they have compensated employees for all the time they have worked. The must also
consider if they have required an employee to work an unreasonably long period of time or if they have
him doing an unusually difficult task. Just like there are legal consequences for some unethical issues
regarding employee behavior, there are also legal consequences for unethical working conditions. For
example, an employer who requires an employee to work without pay or who creates an unsafe working
environment can face legal action.

Supplier/Customer Relations

In addition employees and business owners must consider the ethical issues involved with their
relationships between suppliers and customers. Business owners in particular must consider whether it
is ethical to do business with suppliers who have unethical practices. When dealing with customers or
clients, business people must ensure that they use their information correctly, do not falsely advertise a
product or service, and do not intentionally do sub-standard work.

Small Business Ethics

Although there are ethical issues like discrimination that apply to all areas of business, each business
area has its own ethical concerns. For example, business people who act as consultants must ensure
they are giving sound advice. In the area of small business, some major ethical issues result from hiring,
firing and dealing with employees. For example, conflicts of interest may cause ethical issues in small
businesses, especially if they are family run. When personal family issues interfere with business
decisions, this is a conflict of interest and an ethical concern.