How can one apply utilitarianism to business ethics Flashcards
(9 cards)
Introduction
- What does this raise questions about
- Applying utilitarianism to
- Essay outline
- LOA preview
Business ethics raises questions about the moral obligations of companies in a globalised, profit-driven economy. Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist theory, evaluates actions based on the happiness or suffering they produce.
Applying utilitarianism to business ethics involves analysing whether practices such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), globalisation, and whistleblowing promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
This essay will argue that Rule Utilitarianism offers the most effective and morally intuitive application to business ethics, as it balances flexibility with moral safeguards.
However, this utilitarian application is not without challenges, especially concerning the unpredictability of outcomes and the potential justification of exploitation.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1: Applying Utilitarianism to CSR and Globalisation (AO1 + AO2)
Paragraph 1: Applying Utilitarianism to CSR and Globalisation (AO1 + AO2)
AO1 – Application and Explanation
Utilitarianism supports environmental CSR, since environmental destruction causes long-term suffering. However, social CSR is context-dependent: if exploiting workers maximises overall happiness (e.g., cheap goods, employment), act utilitarians might justify it.
Globalisation raises ethical concerns: companies outsourcing labour can improve lives in developing nations, but often exploit workers. Sweatshops are a prime example—Will MacAskill argues that sweatshop workers are better off than if they were unemployed and starving. Thus, act utilitarianism may defend sweatshops.
Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism adds nuance. Rather than assessing individual acts, we follow rules that would maximise happiness if generally adopted. Mill’s Harm Principle suggests people should be free to choose so long as they do not harm others. Therefore, adults autonomously choosing to work in sweatshops might be morally acceptable. However, children—who cannot consent—would be excluded.
Paragraph 1: Applying Utilitarianism to CSR and Globalisation (AO1 + AO2)
AO2 – Critical Evaluation
A major issue is the calculation problem: we cannot reliably predict all consequences, especially under time constraints. Businesses may underestimate the long-term harm of exploitative practices or overestimate the happiness they generate.
Moreover, exploitation sets dangerous precedents—Noam Chomsky warns against giving corporations too much power, as this erodes democratic accountability and human rights.
Still, Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism avoids much of this danger by institutionalising safeguards: if a general rule (e.g., banning child labour or ensuring fair wages) promotes overall happiness, we should adopt it. In this way, Rule Utilitarianism can counteract both exploitation and the unpredictability of act-based calculations.
However, some critics argue even Rule Utilitarianism can be too permissive, allowing some exploitation if it maximises happiness. Kant, by contrast, insists on never treating people as mere means. Yet this deontological rigidity may cause greater harm in practice. Utilitarianism’s strength lies in its flexibility.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: Whistleblowing, Moral Responsibility, and the Limits of Utilitarian Calculation (AO1 + AO2)
Paragraph 2: Whistleblowing, Moral Responsibility, and the Limits of Utilitarian Calculation (AO1 + AO2)
AO1 – Application and Explanation
Whistleblowing exposes unethical practices (e.g., employee mistreatment, environmental harm). Utilitarianism supports whistleblowing if the benefits (transparency, justice) outweigh harms (loss of jobs, damage to company). However, if the whistleblowing collapses a business providing life-saving work (e.g., curing cancer), act utilitarians might oppose it.
In contrast, Kant sees whistleblowing as morally necessary: unethical business practices use people as mere means, and lying (including cover-ups) is always wrong. Thus, whistleblowing is not only permissible but required.
Paragraph 2: Whistleblowing, Moral Responsibility, and the Limits of Utilitarian Calculation (AO1 + AO2)
AO2 – Critical Evaluation
The utilitarian problem here is again calculation—employees rarely know the full financial situation or the long-term impact of whistleblowing. What if the exposure causes massive layoffs or a critical service to end? It’s nearly impossible to predict. Kant’s clarity—that truth-telling is a duty—seems more morally secure.
However, Kant’s absolutism is arguably too rigid. He would forbid lying to save lives or exploiting even to prevent worse outcomes. In the business context, that could forbid actions that, although questionable, save thousands from poverty.
Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism offers a better alternative. A rule encouraging whistleblowing would likely promote accountability, deter unethical conduct, and increase long-term happiness. The Primark case illustrates the complexity: cutting ties with a sweatshop harmed the workers more than helped. Rule Utilitarianism could help guide companies to develop fair practices that don’t abruptly abandon vulnerable workers.
Furthermore, Friedman’s shareholder theory (that the only business ethic is profit maximisation) conflicts with utilitarian principles. Though profit may increase happiness through innovation and employment, unchecked capitalism (as Marx warned) often becomes exploitative. Rule Utilitarianism’s emphasis on social rules aligns more closely with democratic ideals than either rigid deontology or amoral capitalism.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism can be successfully applied to business ethics, particularly through Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism, which provides moral flexibility while promoting general wellbeing through consistent, happiness-maximising rules. Though act utilitarianism risks justifying exploitation and is vulnerable to unpredictable outcomes, Rule Utilitarianism avoids these problems by guiding business practices through socially established norms like environmental responsibility, whistleblowing protection, and fair labour standards.
LOA
Ultimately, utilitarianism provides a more realistic and practically effective approach than Kantian absolutism, especially in the morally grey, consequence-laden world of business. It allows us to protect vulnerable people while also recognising the complex trade-offs businesses face. However, its success depends on continually refining the rules we adopt to ensure they truly serve the greatest number—both now and in the long term.