Business ethics essay plans

Assess the view that utilitarianism provides the best approach to business ethics.

P1: Principle of utility vs. individual autonomy → globalisation/exploitation

- It could be argued utilitarianism offers an effective approach to business ethics as a result of

looking to maximise pleasure and minimise pain for the greatest number which in turn
enables the practice CSR, as the people managing the business will have a duty to consider
the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, customers, shareholders and the
environments. The “principle of utility” is the principle that actions are to be judged by their
usefulness in this sense: their tendency to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or
happiness.
- Yet as with all teleological normative theories, the principle of utility may undermine rights
the rights of individual workers, especially in the case of Act utilitarianism, which is
quantitative not qualitative. The greater good may be passed off or considered as cheap
products for thousands of customers, thus, justifying the exploitation of poorly paid child-
labourers in sweatshops as is the case for the Rana Plaza case. This would paint Kant’s duty-
based ethics is more effective, due to idea of not treating individuals as means to an end.
- Although the PoU may enable people to favour the happiness of some over the pain of
others, the hedonic calculus, when used correctly, will weigh the intensity and duration of
the pain/pleasure over one another, to ensure ethical practice. Ford Pinto which fuel tanks
leading to fires if rear-ended; cost-benefit analysis determined it cheaper to ignore it, may
have appeared the hedonic calculus to do a cost-benefit analysis, but Bentham would argue
the impacts of people dying through fires caused in cars would have long lasting and intense
impacts, far greater than the greater than the profits made.
- It would be arguably impossible to calculate the accurate impacts of business decisions in the
globalised world, using the hedonic calculus as decisions impact a number of people across
the world and cannot always be predicted. Thus, a deontological approach, ensuring
businesses act as legislating members in a kingdom of ends, universalising their maxims to
judge whether their decisions contradict the will, ensures ethical practice from the offset.

P2: Consequentialist vs duty and intentions → whistleblowing

- Arguably a teleological approach is more practical for business ethics, as a business must be
able to develop profits, which in turn will allow for ethical treatment and sourcing/ benefit of
society. Solomon: no contradiction between existing good values in business behaviour and
success- “profits will come as a consequence” of good business / “an ethical business is more
likely to prosper” For example, the treatment of workers in Primark factories is awful and the
company has developed a bad name for themselves
- Yet if ethical treatment comes after profits have been generated, this suggests the company
is acting out of baser motives and not “duty for duty’s sake.” In the case of whistleblowing, a
utilitarian may discourage an employee from speaking out against unethical employers for
the sake of allowing the company to continue making profits. This, in turn, goes against
both Kant and Mill’s ideas of individual liberty and autonomy, as workers may be coerced
into staying quiet. Yet still, utilitarianism focuses on the overall good (of people and not just
profits), thus if blowing the whistle brings about a greater good over pain, then it could be
permitting e.g. Samuel Provance, an army intelligence soldier, blew the whistle on a cover-up
involving abuses at Abu Ghraib – he was demoted and discharged in 2006 the intensity of
the suffering inflicted in Abu Ghraib made it the right choice to blow the whistle, even if this
impacted negatively on the profits of the business.
Business ethics essay plans

- Nonetheless, it could be said that in order for businesses to flourish and make a profit, one
has to judge based on consequences and not duty or responsibility. Milton Friedman, in ‘The
Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits’ has challenged the idea of corporate
social responsibility, arguing that the only aim of a business is “to use its resources and
engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the
game”
- Yet a Kantian approach, a following duty of ethical treatment will in fact increase a business’s
profits. Crane and Matten, in ‘Business Ethics’ argue that it is in a business’s interest, as well
as the interest of stakeholders, to develop good business ethics

P3: Kingdom of ends, good ethics is good business

- Overall, it seems Utilitarianism’s holistic approach leaves too much room for exploitation. By
applying a deontological approach, it prevents companies from justifying exploitation or
dishonesty, as one is forced to imagine maxims as laws of nature.
- Nonetheless some may argue that such a rigid deontological approach to business ethics
prevents businesses from having sovereignty. Classical Utilitarians such as Mill and Bentham
were committed to free market economics with minimal state intervention. Adam Smith, in
‘The Wealth of Nations’ speaks of the “invisible hand” of the free-market system; we don’t
need rigid deontological theories as humans have an innate compassion and sense of respect
for others, which would enable a naturally humane capitalist economy.
- Although we may like to think businesses would naturally avoid exploitation it is evident this
is not the case. In today’s capitalist society we must use Kant’s categorical imperative to
ensure business is regulated. Development of human rational capacities and dignity through
making decisions in accordance to the Categorical Imperative, which ensures just treatment
of all. Companies must see themselves as part of a wider community and thus work towards
a common good where everyone can flourish. Acting socially responsibly may prevent
government legislation, which forces businesses into contracts which prohibit their
sovereignty → overall good ethics helps the business and the people it affects.

CONCLUSION:

- John Tarurek has argued that the idea of happiness or pleasure across persons is quite
meaningless. Those individuals are morally meaningless in the situation. He questioned if our
course of action should be taken into consideration in the trade-off situation. Taurek also
said that “The conclusion I reach is that we should not”. His argument basically looks at a
trade-off situation”. He explained, “The situation is that he has a supply of some life-saving
drug”. He cannot give a satisfactory account of the meaning of judgments of the kind.