Business Ethics - Discussion Project                        Applying Utilitarianism and Kantianism

Part One   Applying utilitarianism

Each group will be assigned one of the cases from the sheet titled "Cases for Discussion." First, we will examine your case from the point of view of a simple version of utilitarianism (called ‘act-utilitarianism’.) 

Utilitarianism says:

1.  When we are trying to decide what to do, the only thing that matters is the results or consequences of our actions.

2. When we are evaluating these results, the only thing that matters is the impact that they have on the happiness or well-being of whoever is affected by what we do.

3. But we have to consider the consequences for everyone who is affected by what we do, not just the consequences for ourselves. In fact, to be ethical, we have to give equal weight or importance to each person's happiness or well-being. We don't get to give our own happiness more importance than anybody else's.

Proceed as follows (you are going to construct and fill in a chart with columns and rows):

[Note:  In order to carry out this project you are almost certainly going to have to make some assumptions about your case. You will need to stipulate (i.e., make up, invent) facts that supplement the facts mentioned in the case description. You may have to decide, for example, how many employees work for the firm you are discussing, or how likely it is that a fired employee will be able to easily find another job, or how much business a firm will lose if some secret becomes public, and so on.  Don’t get hung up on getting these things exactly ‘right’.  Just use your common sense and make up some ‘facts’ that seem plausible.  But do stick with the facts that are specified in the case description you’ve been given.  Don’t change those.] 

1. List what you think are the two or three most plausible options for action in this situation.  Put each of these at the head of a column on your chart.

2. Make a list of the people or groups of people who are affected by this decision. Give each person or group a row in your chart.

     [Note:  Ideally we would like to consider the impact of our actions on every individual who is affected. In practice a utilitarian analysis will often need to lump people together into groups and consider the average effect on members of each group. Depending on the nature of the case, these might be groups like ‘employees’, ‘customers’, ‘stockholders’, ‘taxpayers’, ‘patients’, ‘members of x’s family’, ‘residents of the neighborhood’ ‘people offended by behavior y’, “people who would benefit from engaging in behavior y’, etc. Once we have lumped people together this way we need an estimate of the average cost or benefit (in utility, not dollars) for the members of a group. Then we multiply that number by the number of group members.]

3. For each person (or group) and for each possible action, try to decide how well (or how badly) that person (or group) would fare. What effect would each possible action have on that person’s happiness? Would it make them better off or worse off or leave them about the same?  If it is a group of people, estimate the effect on an average group member.  Try to actually assign a quantitative estimate of this.  Use a scale from ‘-10’ to ‘+10’, where ‘-10’ represents the worst possible fate for a human being (something like permanent intense suffering) and ‘+10’ represents the best possible outcome (something like permanent intense enjoyment).  ‘0’ on the scale would represent the neutral point (neither good nor bad).  Obviously, we do not have any way to actually measure people’s happiness here.  Just make an estimate that seems reasonable to you.

4. If you have groups on your list of affected parties, don’t forget to multiply the effect on the average group member by the number of people in the group.

5.  Add up the numbers in each column to determine which action best promotes ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’.

6. Discuss whether this procedure seems to be a sensible one for determining what it is right to do.

Here is the kind of chart you need to construct:

Action number 2 wins by a lot (3686 units of utility).  Notice that in this example, group #2 is so large that the effect on that group swamps the effects on any other person or group.  That can happen when your job is to promote “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”.

Part Two  Applying Kant's Categorical Imperative (The Formula of Universal Law)

You may want to re-read the explanation of the Formula of Universal Law on pp 31-32 of BEF. 

And here is a simple example of how this kind of reasoning is supposed to go:

You are about to go into Starbucks to buy a cup of coffee when you notice that someone has left a very nice bike leaning against the wall by the door.  You can see that a fellow in biking togs is engaged in putting in his order, and you feel sure that, if you jumped on the bike and pedaled away, you could be out of sight before he noticed what had happened.  You would really like to have a nice new bike like this one.  But would it be right? 
Your maxim (rule) would be something like:  Whenever I see that I can get away with taking someone else’s property, and I want that property for myself, I will take it, in order to have more nice things.  Then you ask if it can be universalized – what if everyone did that kind of thing?  Well, if everyone followed this rule, then everyone would steal anything they wanted whenever they thought they could get away with it.  And then people would steal your things whenever they thought they could get away with it.  And (here’s the crucial thought) this would contradict your purpose in taking the bike – in such a world, your possession of anything will be very uncertain and temporary – you will not have nice things -- people who are stronger or cleverer than you will take them from you.  (You might think that we already are in such a situation, but we aren’t.  Most people are not thieves.  If literally everyone would steal anything they could, then our possessions would be far more at risk than they are in the real world.)  So this maxim (rule) fails the test.  We cannot will it to be a universal law, because if it was a universal law, then our action would not achieve its purpose (having more nice things).  Kantians call this a ‘practical contradiction’. So it is wrong to take the bike, even if you are sure you can get away with it.

Proceed as follows:

Return to your hypothetical case from the ‘Cases for Discussion” handout. Notice that in each case there is some particular action that the person is thinking of doing or wondering whether to do. For example, in case #1 the managers are considering lobbying for a special exemption from the law; in case #4 the man is wondering whether he should tell his employer what he has learned; and so on. Take that action as the focus for answering the following questions.

1. How might you best formulate the rule (or maxim) that the person is proposing to follow? It is probably best to try to fit your maxim to the following schema: “Whenever [fill in morally relevant features of the situation here] , I will always [put description of the action to be taken here]  in order to [fill in the goal of the action here] .” You will need to decide how many of the details of the case need to be included in order to get it into proper ethical focus.

2. Does this rule pass the test set up by Kant's Categorical Imperative? That is, is it a rule which one can consistently will to be a universal law? Or, in other words, is it a rule which one can reasonably want everyone to follow whenever they are faced with similar circumstances? (If not, explain why not.) Remember that you are not looking for a bad result of some kind (as in “if everybody does this, then many people will suffer”). You are looking for a practical contradiction (as in “if everybody does this, then my purpose in doing it will be defeated”).

3. What rule (or maxim) would they be following if they decided not do what they are thinking about doing?

4. Does that rule pass the test of the Categorical Imperative? (If not, explain why not.)

5. Considering your answers to questions 2 and 4, is the proposed action forbidden, permissible or required, from a Kantian point of view?
(An action is forbidden, if its maxim fails the test. If it passes the test, then the action is permissible. An action is required when the maxim which tells you not to do it fails the test.)

6.  Discuss whether this procedure seems to be a sensible one for determining what it is right to do.