GROUP 8

Bahan, Abegail
Cornado, Lecil
Gozon, Marites
Refugido, Ronadel
Zanoria, Mairah
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places
the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes
(consequences) of choosing one action/policy over
other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the
scope of one's own interests and takes into account
the interests of others.
An ethical theory that determines right from wrong by
focusing on outcomes. It is a form of
consequentialism.
Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the
one that will produce the greatest good for the
greatest number.

 Utilitarianism is one of the most
powerful and persuasive
approaches to normative ethics
in the history of
philosophy. Though not fully
articulated until the
19th century, proto-utilitarian
positions can be discerned
throughout the history of ethical
theory.
The History of
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is generally held
to be the view that the
morally right action is the
action that produces the most
good. There are many ways to
spell out this general claim.
One thing to note is that the
theory is a form of
consequentialism: the right
action is understood entirely
in terms of consequences
produced. What distinguishes
utilitarianism from egoism has
to do with the scope of the
relevant consequences. On
the utilitarian view one ought
to maximize the overall good
— that is, consider the good of
others as well as one's own
good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with
pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists
about value. They also held that we ought to
maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the
greatest amount of good for the greatest
number’.
Utilitarianism is also distinguished by
impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's
happiness counts the same. When one
maximizes the good, it is the
good impartially considered.
 The first systematic account of
utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy
Bentham (1748–1832), the core insight
motivating the theory occurred much
earlier. That insight is that morally
appropriate behavior will not harm
others, but instead increase happiness
or ‘utility.’
 What is distinctive about utilitarianism
is its approach in taking that insight
and developing an account of moral
evaluation and moral direction that
expands on it.
 Early precursors to the Classical
Utilitarians include the British Moralists,
Cumberland, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson,
Gay, and Hume. Of these, Francis
Hutcheson (1694–1746) is explicitly
utilitarian when it comes to action
choice.
 Precursors to the Classical
Approach
Some of the earliest utilitarian
thinkers were the ‘theological’
utilitarians such as Richard
Cumberland (1631–1718) and
John Gay (1699–1745). 
They believed that promoting
human happiness was
incumbent on us since it was
approved by God.
This approach to
utilitarianism, however, is not
theoretically clean in the
sense that it isn't clear what
essential work God does, at
least in terms of normative
ethics. God as the source of
normativity is compatible with
utilitarianism, but
utilitarianism doesn't require
this.
Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 3rd Earl of
Shaftesbury (1671–1713) is generally
thought to have been the one of the
earliest ‘moral sense’ theorists, holding
that we possess a kind of “inner eye”
that allows us to make moral
discriminations. 
The Classical The Classical Approach
Utilitarians, Bentham What is the truth about what
makes an action or a policy a
and Mill, were morally good one, or
morally right? But developing
the theory itself was also
concerned with legal influenced by strong views
about what was wrong in their
and social reform.  society.

Classical Utilitarianism The conviction that, for

example, some laws are bad

it would be the desire resulted in analysis of why

they were bad. And, for
Jeremy Bentham, what made
to see useless, corrupt them bad was their lack of
utility, their tendency to lead
laws and social to unhappiness and misery
without any compensating
practices changed. happiness. If a law or an
action doesn't do any good,
then it isn't any good.
Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was influenced
both by Hobbes' account of human nature
and Hume's account of social utility.

 Jurist and political reformer, is the

philosopher whose name is most closely
associated with the foundational era of the
modern utilitarian tradition.

He famously held that humans were ruled by

two sovereign masters — pleasure and pain.

We seek pleasure and the avoidance of pain,

they “…govern us in all we do, in all we say,
in all we think…” (Bentham PML, 1). Yet he
also promulgated the principle of utility as the
standard of right action on the part of
governments and individuals. Actions are
approved when they are such as to promote
happiness, or pleasure, and disapproved of
when they have a tendency to cause
unhappiness, or pain (PML). 
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was a
follower of Bentham, and, through most of
his life, greatly admired Bentham's work
even though he disagreed with some of
Bentham's claims — particularly on the
nature of ‘happiness.’ Bentham, recall,
had held that there were no qualitative
differences between pleasures, only
quantitative ones.

Was the most influential English language

philosopher of the nineteenth century. He
was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a
liberal, whose work explores the
consequences of a thoroughgoing
empiricist outlook.
 Henry Sidgwick
He was one of the most influential
ethical philosophers of the Victorian era,
and his work continues to exert a
powerful influence on Anglo-American
ethical and political theory, with an
increasing global impact as well. 

His masterpiece, The Methods of

Ethics (1907), was first published in
1874 and in many ways marked the
culmination of the classical utilitarian
tradition.

 The Methods of Ethics  is one of the

most well known works in utilitarian
moral philosophy, and deservedly so. It
offers a defense of utilitarianism, though
some writers (Schneewind 1977) have
argued that it should not primarily be
read as a defense of utilitarianism. 
FORD PINTO CASE
The Ford Pinto is a front-
engine,rear-drive
subcompact
carmanufactured and
marketed byFord Motor
Company for modelyears
1971-1980.

The first subcompact

developed byFord in North
America, the Pintowas
marketed in two-door
coupe(1971-1972) three-
door hatchback(1971-
1980) and three-door
stationwagon (1972-1980)
body styles.
In 1977, Mother
Jonesmagazine
published a
storyentitled “Pinto
Madness”accusing Ford
of releasing anunsafe
car with which
hundredsof people
suffered from
deathsand
disfiguration due to
burns.
During the pre-production
FordEngineers already
learned that a rear–end
collision would easily rupture
thegas tanks.

Despite knowing the defect

andowning a patent of a
much safer gastank they
continued with theproduction
because the assemblyline-
machinery was already
tooledwhen engineers.
FACTS OF THE CASE  In 1977, after eight years of the
first out of Pinto cars,
 Instead of redesigning their
Fordreleases new Pinto models
units, Ford decided to settle
which have incorporated
withplaintiffs because, as they
minoralterations to meet the
have stated in their cost benefit
federal standards.
analysis,it would be cheaper  Ford counter-attacked several
than doing a redesign of their
points from Dowie’s press
cars.
 Ford paid out millions to settle
conference, and claimed that
based on statistics Pinto
damage suits out of court and
was onlyaccounted for 1.9
isprepared to spend millions
percent of fire-associated car
more lobbying against
accidents. Thus,Ford concluded
safety standards.
that Pinto was never an unsafe
 Ford’s profit is also significantly
car and has notbeen involved in
high because Pinto is thebiggest- some 70 burn deaths annually
selling subcompact car in the as claimed by Mother Jones.
United States.
Common consumer,marketing and sales related ethical issues
in today’s marketplace.

Irresponsible Market Research

Improper market research and grouping can lead to stereotypingthat shapes
undesirable beliefs and attitudes and consequentlyaffect marketing behavior.

Unethical Advertising and Promotion

Making false claims about what the product does and its importanceis an unethical
way to gain profit.

Dealing with competitors
Many companies advertise cheap prices as a “bait” and then oncethey draw in the
customers, “switch” them over to a more costlyproduct, because the advertised
good was not available, insufficientor not of any value to the customer.

Pricing strategies
Predatory pricing or pricing beneath the competition so as tocannibalize the market
and restrict the competition is an unethicalpricing strategy. And setting up
barriers that prevent smallercompanies from entering the market is unethical as
well.
 ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION
ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF
ACTION
Take more time to solve the defects
found in the Pinto Model and take the
chance of still be the top seller,
having a better quality than
competition.
Take time to install and assume the
additional cost and install the
$5.08safety improvement.
Do nothing and manage the claims.
PROS
It would give more time to study
other alternative solution that may
save on cost, solution cost being
lower than the 11$proposal and it
would be able to study other defects
especially on safety that will benefit
the consumers as well as the image
of the company and their profit
margin.
It would be a cheap solution to the
defect found on the fuel tank at the
same time it would lessen accidents
related to the gas line. This would
result as well to savings on the
possible claims against Ford and
maintain their reputation in the
market.
The target launch date will be met
which means that Ford can cope with
the completion of compact cars and
given the targeted cost, Ford will be
able to get the target profit margin.
CONS
The more time spent to study will
give longer time for the launch of the
new model. It would as well result in
the loss in the prospective buyers
because of the delay in the launch.
This alternative would incur
additional cost that will lower down
profit because there was a target
price of $2,000 per vehicle sold. And
It would as well take additional time
to manufacture the car causing a
delay in the target launch date.
Accidents resulting from the defect
will definitely cause claims – injuries
and death of Consumers, as well as
multiple number of lawsuits. The
reputation and financial aspect of
Ford might be affected if there will be
more claims than expected. Moreover
higher costs for settlement might
happen if the filed cases are not
handled well by the lawyers of Ford.
Kant and Rights Theory
 Immanuel Kant
(22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804)

 German philosopher and his major

contributions to ethics can be found in his 2
works .

1. The foundation of methaphysics of

morals
2. The critique of the practical reason .
KANTIAN ETHICS
 Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgements are based on feelings. For him,
feelings even serve as obstructions to our discernment of right and wrong. His
ethical theory instead bases moral judgements on reason alone.
 Good will
 Kant believes that when we wish to determine the moral status of an action, we
consult reason.
 But who is a good person or a person of good will?
 Distinction between acts done “from the motive duty” and those that are

 “in accordance of duty”

 “Can a person know what his duty is in a given situation?”

 Is there a test to find out what one’s duty is in a particular set of

circumstances.
 Maxim is a general rule or principle which serves as a guide to action .
Such as:
“be honest always” “don’t always shoot the ball when you get it”
“don’t wear the wedding gown before the wedding” and “when in doubt, render a
salute”
 Imperative – should be understood as a command of reason


Hypothetical entails being true only under some conditions, and therefore not
universally true or valid. It directs one to behave in a certain manners on the
condition that one seeks specified goals. So, its like a decree stating that if you wish
to accomplish such – and – such an end, you must act in such – and – such a way.
 Categorical Imperative – it commands a person to act in a particular ways
regardless of what goals one looks for what one’s ends may be.

As suggested by the term ‘categorical’, this imperative is exceptionless, that is binding

on all rational agents, in all circumstances, at all times.
Kant’s moral philosophy that an act is morally good if it is done for the sake of a
morally good maxim; and a maxim is morally good if it conforms to the categorical
imperative.

Universalizability which states, “act only to that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.”

A person must ask himself, “how would this action appear if it were to become a
universal rule?” “can reason will it to become a general rule for all rational agents to
follow?”

Another famous formulation of categorical imperative

‘ end – in – itself!’ which states “so act as to use humanity, both in your own person
and in the other person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never
simply as a means.”
Kant on Moral Worth
The Moral Worth of Persons
Kant also has something to say about what makes someone
a good person.  Keep in mind that Kant intends this to go
along with the rest of his theory, and what one's duty is
would be determined by the categorical imperative. 
However, one can treat this as a separate theory to some
extent, and consider that one's duty is determined by
some other standard.  Keep in mind that what is said
below has to do with how one evaluates people, not
actions.  A person's actions are right or wrong, a person
is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally
base).  A person's actions determine her moral worth, but
there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are
right or wrong.
 The basic idea
Kant argues that a person is good or bad
depending on the motivation of their actions
and not on the goodness of the consequences of
those actions.  By "motivation" I mean what
caused you to do the action (i.e., your reason
for doing it).  Kant argues that one can have
moral worth (i.e., be a good person) only if one
is motivated by morality.  In other words, if a
person's emotions or desires cause them to do
something, then that action cannot give them
moral worth.  This may sound odd, but there is
good reason to agree with Kant.
 Why motivation is what matters
Imagine that I win the lottery and I'm wondering what to
do with the money.  I look around for what would be the
most fun to do with it:  buy a yacht, travel in first class
around the world, get that knee operation, etc..  I decide
that what would be really fun is to give the money to
charity and to enjoy that special feeling you get from
making people happy, so I give all my lottery money
away.  According to Kant, I am not a morally worthy
person because I did this, after all I just did whatever I
thought would be the most fun and there is nothing
admirable about such a selfish pursuit.  It was just lucky
for those charities that I thought giving away money was
fun.  Moral worth only comes when you do something
because you know that it is your duty and you would do
it regardless of whether you liked it.
Why consequences don't matter
A reason why Kant is not concerned with consequences can be
seen in the following example.  Imagine two people out together
drinking at a bar late one night, and each of them decides to
drive home very drunk.  They drive in different directions through
the middle of nowhere.  One of them encounters no one on the
road, and so gets home without incident regardless of totally
reckless driving.  The other drunk is not so lucky and encounters
someone walking at night, and kills the pedestrian with the car. 
Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are
equally bad, and the fact that one person got lucky does not
make them any better than the other drunk.  After all, they both
made the same choices, and nothing within either one's control
had anything to do with the difference in their actions.  The same
reasoning applies to people who act for the right reasons.  If both
people act for the right reasons, then both are morally worthy,
even if the actions of one of them happen to lead to bad
consequences by bad luck.
The wrong interpretation
Consider the case described above about the lottery
winner giving to charity.  Imagine that he gives to a
charity and he intends to save hundreds of starving
children in a remote village.  The food arrives in the village
but a group of rebels finds out that they have food, and
they come to steal the food and end up killing all the
children in the village and the adults too.  The intended
consequence of feeding starving children was good, and
the actual consequences were bad.  Kant is not saying that
we should look at the intended consequences in order to
make a moral evaluation.  Kant is claiming that regardless
of intended or actual consequences, moral worth is
properly assessed by looking at the motivation of the
action, which may be selfish even if the intended
consequences are good.
Kant does not forbid happiness
A careful reader may notice that in the example above one of the selfish
person's intended consequences is to make himself happy, and so it might
seem to be that intended consequences do matter.  One might think Kant
is claiming that if one of my intentions is to make myself happy, that my
action is not worthy.  This is a mistake.  The consequence of making
myself happy is a good consequence, even according to Kant.  Kant
clearly thinks that people being happy is a good thing.  There is nothing
wrong with doing something with an intended consequence of making
yourself happy, that is not selfishness.  You can get moral worth doing
things that you enjoy, but the reason you are doing them cannot be that
you enjoy them, the reason must be that they are required by duty.  Also,
there is a tendency to think that Kant says it is always wrong to do
something that just causes your own happiness, like buying an ice cream
cone.  This is not the case.  Kant thinks that you ought to do things to
make yourself happy as long as you make sure that they are not immoral
(i.e., contrary to duty), and that you would refrain from doing them if
they were immoral.  Getting ice cream is not immoral, and so you can go
ahead and do it.  Doing it will not make you a morally worthy person, but
it won't make you a bad person either.  Many actions which are
permissible but not required by duty are neutral in this way.
Summary
According to Kant a good person is
someone who always does their duty
because it is their duty.  It is fine if they
enjoy doing it, but it must be the case
that they would do it even if they did not
enjoy it.  The overall theme is that to be a
good person you must be good for
goodness sake.
Rights Theory
 Government were entrusted with the capacity to create laws by the citizen they
governed in exchanged for protection.
 “the notion that in order for a society to be efficacious”

Rights Based Ethics

 “there are some rights , both positive and negative, that all human have based only
on the fact that they are human”
 It can be natural or conventional
 The right to life
 The right to liberty
 The right to pursue happiness
 The right to be treated as equal to others
 The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual
LEGAL VS. MORAL RIGHTS

 What is legal is not always moral, and sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily
legal in a particular country.

Legal Rights

 Legal rights do not all the rights found within existing legal codes as such they enjoy
recognition and protection by the law.

Moral Rights

 Moral rights, in plain contrast, are rights that exit prior to and independently from the
legal counterpast
A problem for Kant’s Theory
 Kant’s view is that lying is always wrong.  His argument for this is
summarized by James Rachels as follows:
 
 (1)  We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we
could will be adopted universally.
 
 (2)  If we were to lie, we would be following the rule “It is
permissible to lie.”
 
 (3)  This rule could not be adopted universally, because it would be
self-defeating:  people would stop believing one another, and then it
would do no good to lie.

 (4)  Therefore, we should not lie.

 The problem with this argument is that we can lie without simply following the rule “It
is permissible to lie.”  Instead, we might be following a rule that pertains only to
specific circumstances, like “It is permissible to lie when doing so will save a life.”  
 This rule can be made a universal law without contradiction.  After all, it is not as
though people would stop believing each other simply because it is known that
people lie when doing so will save lives.  
 For one thing, that situation rarely comes up—people could still be telling the truth
almost all of the time.  Even the taking of human life could be justified under certain
circumstances.  
 Take self-defense, for example.  There appears to be nothing problematic with the
rule “It is permissible to kill when doing so is the only available means of defense
against an attacker”.
Procedure for determining whether a proposed action violates CI1:  
 (1)  Formulate the maxim:
I am to do x in circumstances y in order to bring about z.
 
Example:
I am to lie on a loan application when I am in severe financial difficulty and there is no
other way to obtain funds, in order to ease the strain on my finances.
 
(2)  Generalize the maxim into a law of nature:
Everyone always does x in circumstances y in order to bring about z.
 
Everyone always lies on a loan application when he is in severe financial difficulty and
there is no other way to obtain funds, in order to ease the strain on his finances.
 
(3)  Figure out the perturbed social world (PSW), that is, what the world would be
like if this law of nature were added to existing laws of nature and things had a
chance to reach equilibrium.  Note: assume that after the adjustment to equilibrium
the new law is common knowledge -- everyone knows that it is true, everyone knows
that everyone knows, etc.
Two questions:

Q1:  Could I rationally act on my maxim in the PSW?

This is the “Contradiction in Conception Test”
 
Q2:  Could I rationally choose the PSW as one in which I would be a member?
This is the “Contradiction in the Will Test”
 
 
The Kantian evaluation rule is this: we must be able to answer yes to both questions for
the maxim to be acceptable. If we get a no answer to either, we must reject the
maxim and try to find another one on which to act.
The deceitful promise (Kant’s 2nd example)
 This is the example we have been using in spelling out the procedure. The maxim fails
because I must answer "no" to the first question: I could not rationally act on the
maxim in the PSW. There are two reasons Kant states for this:
(1) promising and
(2) the end to be attained by it would be impossible, since no one would believe what
was promised him but would laugh at all such utterances as being vain
pretenses.  Lying on a loan application would not get us anywhere in a world where
everyone always lied when under similar circumstances.

Indifference to the needs of others (Kant’s 4th example)

 Here the maxim is something like the following:
 
In order to advance my own interests, I will not do anything to help others in need
unless I have something to gain from doing so.
 
The PSW will contain a law of nature of the form:
 
To advance his own interests, everyone always refrains from helping others in need
unless he has something to gain from doing so.
Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties
Applying the categorical imperative, duties arise because failure to fulfil them would
either result in a contradiction in conception or in a contradiction in the will.

The former are classified as perfect duties, the latter as imperfect. A perfect duty always
holds true—there is a perfect duty to tell the truth, so we must never lie.

An imperfect duty allows flexibility—beneficence is an imperfect duty because we are

not obliged to be completely beneficent at all times, but may choose the times and
places in which we are.

Kant believed that perfect duties are more important than imperfect duties: if a conflict
between duties arises, the perfect duty must be followed.
If a maxim flunks Q1  then we have a perfect duty to refrain from acting on that maxim.
 
If a maxim flunks Q2 but not Q1, then we have an imperfect duty to refrain from acting
on that maxim.
 
- Our Perfect duties (duties of justice) are negative in that they require that
we never perform certain types of actions, and can only be fulfilled in very specific
ways.
 
- Our Imperfect duties (duties of virtue) are positive in that they require that
we sometimes perform certain types of actions.
Examples:
 
Duties                                    Perfect                                               Imperfect
 
To Others                             tell truth                                               assist others in need
don’t break promises                       help others achieve goals
                                              don’t steal, murder, enslave
 
To Self                                   no suicide or 
develop talents other forms of self-destruction
 
 
According to Kant, perfect duties (duties of justice) can appropriately be enforced by
means of the public, juridical use of coercion, and the remainder are imperfect duties
(duties of virtue), which are fit subjects for moral assessment but not
coercion.  (Recall that Jan Narveson follows this distinction in his paper “Feeding the
Hungry”)
            
A case study for comparing Kant’s theory with Utilitarianism
 
Martha, as a home-service medical care volunteer, has cared for George through the
final weeks of his fatal illness. Just before he died, George told Martha where a large
sum of money he had accumulated was stored. He asked her to see that the money
was given to the Society for Protection against Alien Control of the Earth (SPACE).
Since George's illness did not affect his mental capacity, she agreed. But now that he
has died, she is considering using the money to support the activities of the local
Hunger Task Force, an organization that provides donated food to those who need it.
George has no surviving friends or relatives, and no one else knows about the
money. He left no written will.
 
Kantian analysis
 
To run this case through the CI procedure, we first need to identify Martha's maxim. To
do this, we look at the description of the situation and see if we can determine which
sort of principle Martha would sincerely formulate as justification of her action. Recall
that all maxims can be put into the form:
 
I am to do x in circumstances y in order to promote z
 
So we can determine the maxim by specifying what should go in for x, y and z. The
following substitutions seem plausible:
 
x = break a deathbed promise
y = when doing so will allow me to do much more good for humanity
z = the goal of increasing human welfare
So the three steps of the CI procedure will look like this:
 
Formulate the maxim: I am to break a deathbed promise when doing so will allow me
to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of increasing
human welfare.
 
Generalize the maxim into a law of nature: Everyone always breaks deathbed
promises when doing so allows him to do much more good for humanity, in order to
promote the goal of increasing human welfare.
 
Figure out the PSW: In the PSW, it will be common knowledge that people break
deathbed promises whenever they think they can do much more good for humanity
First question: Would it be rational to adopt and act on my maxim in the PSW? No,
because in the PSW no one would ask for deathbed promises, because everyone
would know that they are not genuine commitments. The maxim would not be an
effective policy for promoting human welfare.
 
Since the answer to the first question is "No," Martha should not act on her maxim,
since it fails the "contradiction in conception" test.
 
Recall that there were two formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
 
Formulation I, the Formula of Universal Law [CI1]:  “Act only on that maxim
through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.”
 
Formulation II, The Formula of the End in Itself [CI2]:  “So act as to treat humanity,
both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same
time as an end, never simply as a means.”

Thus, we have two main duties that derive from the CI2:
(1)  the perfect duty to act on no maxims that use people as mere means.
(2)  the imperfect duty to act on some maxims that foster peoples’ ends.
 
Kant believed CI1 and CI2 to be equivalent; he thought that each implied
exactly the same duties.  We won’t concern ourselves with whether this is
true (though it is plausible that they would have the same implications for
the cases we have examined).