Util vs Kant

Question 1

Utilitarianism seems to require

issue of calculation

Answer 1

• That we know can the future consequences of all the possible actions we could take
• That we can make incredibly complex calculations about the range of possible actions, sometimes under time-constraints.
• That these calculations include the objective measuring of subjective mental states like pleasure and pain.

Question 2

Application of this issue to Business ethics

CSR

issue of calculation

Answer 2

-effects difficult to predict: how they negatively effect business + how much positively affect society

Question 3

Application of this issue to Business ethics

globalisation

issue of calculation

Answer 3

-difficult to predict effects
-hard to say how much poverty might prevent through off shore outsourcing or how much corrupt markets due to creating more monoplies + buying off politicians

Question 4

Application of this issue to Business ethics

whistle blowing

issue of calculation

Answer 4

-might cause bankrupt which cause unhappiness for employees
-hard to predict if it will but v hard to know whether WB would maximise happiness

Question 5

Application of this issue to Business ethics

Critical comparison with Kant

issue of calculation

Answer 5

-he doesnt have this issue
-he uses this criticism when defending himself against axe murderer scenario : claim we cant predict/control consequences + therefore cannot be responsible for them
-only morally responsible for our duty

Question 6

Bentham’s response to issues with calculation

issue of calculation

Answer 6

-an action is right regarding ‘the tendency which it appears to have’ to max happiness
-so we actually only need to have reasonable expection of what consequences swill be based on how similar actions have tended to turn out in past

Question 7

Mill’s response to issues with calculation

issue of calculation

Answer 7

-his version avoids this issue
-we dont need to know future, measure feelings+ calculations. only need to know secondary principles r civilisation has, via its collective efforts+experience judge to be those best conductive to happiness
-moral rightness of an act depends on maximise happiness but due to complexity of it r moral obligation is to do r best to follow principles geared tpwards producing happiness of r society
-in conflict of rules he takes same approach as B we must judge the individual action by the principle of utilitybut he adds we shud consider quality not quantity of pleasure

Question 8

issue of the value of consequences

issue of the value of consequences

Answer 8

-kant faces this but util doesnt
-some actions have v good/bad consequences + he seems wrong for not thinking that morally relevant
-axe murderer shows downside of kants rejection of consequences hacing moral significance

Question 9

Whistleblowing

issue of the value of consequences

Answer 9

-some cases have v bad consequences-result in misery + soemtimes death
-like lying k says we must always tell truth even if it kills ppl

Question 10

Globalisation & CSR

issue of the value of consequences

Answer 10

• can each have very good consequences, even when allowing exploitation. First world countries get very cheap products and third world countries get jobs.

Question 11

kants response

issue of value of consequences

Answer 11

-we camt predict/control consequences
-HOWEVER we can to some degree and therefore to that degree we are morally responsible for consequences and they do matter ethically to the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Question 12

issue of intentions

issue of intentions

Answer 12

-util faces it kant doesnt
-it only views consequnces of actiosn as good not intention or character so goes against intuition that good person can have bad/ gd intentions
-Consequentialist theories seem unable to accept that bc for them, it is only consequences which are good or bad, not intentions/character.
-part of kants theory that moral intention is relevant to the goodness of your action, so he does not face this issue.

Question 13

Application of this issue to business ethics:

CSR

issue of intentions

Answer 13

-util wouldnt care about a business merely engaging in csr for pr out of greed fpor profit or deception to distract from other unethical practices
-so long as business + csr activities have gd consequences it would be morally good

Question 14

Application of this issue to business ethics:

globalisation + wb

issue of intentions

Answer 14

-Globalisation could
-A person wb might only do it in order to bring down a rival company
-kant wouldnt have this issue bc for him gd intention is essential , must act out of futy in order for action to be morally gd

Question 15

Mill responds

issue of intention

Answer 15

-person’s character does matter because it will determine their future actions
-having a good character helps you become happy
- Motives and character therefore do matter ethically, though not intrinsically but only insofar as they result in good consequences, in line with consequentialism.
- so if inetion behind csr involved greed/deception then might have overall bad consequnces or thought as morally wrong

Question 16

Kant would not be satisfied

issue of intentions

Answer 16

-by this response, however, as he would maintain that it was the greed and deceptiveness itself that should be regarded as morally deficient.

Question 17

Leads to the critique of Kant

issue of intention

Answer 17

that it is impractical to think humans can act without emotion. Utilitarianism does not have this issue – in fact it accepts that avoiding negative feelings and achieving positive feelings is our ultimate desire/end.