The utilitarian principle is applied everywhere in people’s life. For example, a university student doesn’t attend a lecture. The reason is that he has got something personally and important to do. The consequence of this action is that provides convenience for the student, and nobody else is affected negatively. Another example could be many people download software, music, or movie from internet, for free or very small amount of money, and those downloaded contents are illegal. However, there are still many people who buy legal software, cds, and go to cinemas. It seems that those companies owning the copyright are not quite suffering from the illegal copies. A final example which is probably most well-known is the Nike and Gap one. Nike and Gap are claimed to employ children workers, give low wages and, even exploiting employees in some South East Asia countries. In fact, not only Nike and Gap, many other manufacturing firms also produce in these poorer countries. There have been a lot of debate over the issue, are they doing the right thing? By setting factories in those countries, firstly Nike get cheap labors, and also low cost facilities. Furthermore, Nike may get easy access to those potential markets, such as China, India and so on, as they can sell the products in the place where they are produces with reduced distribution cost. For the countries that Nike are operating in, they get foreign investments, and more job opportunities. People may prefer to work for such multinational companies rather than local ones, as many large companies have strong financial basis that is likely to guarantee long term and stable job, rather than those that are relatively small, but may have the risk to lose job at anytime due to the instability of the company. Overall, Nike and other similar companies seem to benefit from investing in poorer countries. They could attract more consumers as their products can be sold as lower price, as a result of the low cost of the production. The countries also seem to accept their entries. The utilitarian principle can be applied into politics as well. Governments evaluate and implement the decisions that will produce the greatest happiness to people. These are few examples of how utilitarian principle is applied, and such examples can be found in many other areas of people’s life.
Now, Should our moral beliefs be based on the utilitarian principle of securing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? This is not a question that can be simply answered yes or no. As a moral principle, it is inevitable of being criticized and questioned. Are those examples are morally right? If not, what are the objections?
While the utilitarian principle has been used widely and popular, people often argue that it is not possible to depend on this one single principle when facing a moral decision. Kantianism is another philosophical theory regarding to human being’s ethical behaviour. Being a opposite theory to utilitarianism, it requires people to do what they expect others to do. Therefore people’s behaviour should be based on the universal law. The second aspect of Kant’s theory is that focus on the motivation and willing, whereas utilitarian theory focus more on consequence. Looking back to the downloading illegal contents example, although the action can provide convenience and reduced cost to people, which is a good consequence overall. However, the intention of the action is wrong, therefore according to Kant’s theory, the action is wrong. Comparing two theories, Kantianism seems to be more rational, where there is a universal law, e.g. people shouldn’t lie, and organizations should treat workers well. Utilitarianism on the other hand has no universal law on which morality is bases, therefore each situation is judged individually.
The utilitarian principle requires that we first evaluate both the good and bad consequences of an action; then we determine whether the total good consequences is greater the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally right. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally wrong. This process is more subjective and can not be universally applied whereas Kantianism can be. Also, one's person determination of what produces the greatest consequence may not be same another person's, therefore this theory is inconsistent and a universal law cannot be applied from it. Kantianism is more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to people. It is more rational because even if the consequences of the action aren't necessarily the best, the person who performs is still right to perform the action because it is their duty to do so and the action is followed by the universal law. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing. Kantianism reminds us the question: Should we just focus on the positive outcome or should we also focus on the actions we take?
Except Kant's opposite theory to utilitarian theory, there are some other criticisms and objections. One of the most common criticisms of the utilitarian principles is that it sometimes produces consequence that is in contrast with people's "common morality". This simply means an internal moral feeling of people, where sometimes people know what is right or wrong instinctively without any consulting or hesitating. Looking back to the examples, people will usually say that not attending a lecture is incorrect, and more morally, exploiting workers is wrong.
One of the other problems with the utilitarian view is that although it helps with making decisions in the situation which the consequence are actually known and how everyone will be affected. However, this is often unknown, and sometimes there is no way of knowing. This may apply to many complex situations such as Nike’s. As one of the largest multinational companies, Nike should have carefully evaluated the outcome of using low cost labours. However, they didn’t realise that the people’s reaction would have been very serious, such as the demonstrations, which have certainly affect the reputation of Nike. As a result Nike should have done various actions to retrieve the cost, such as improving the working environment of the workers and so on. In reality, when weighing the good and bad outcomes, it is often impossible to calculate all the consequences.
If all the above considerations are taken in to account, then the utilitarian principle is apparently not, and cannot be the single answer for people's moral beliefs. However, looking at all the examples mentioned above, should the student attend the lecture but dismiss his personal thing which may be important? Should people download software instead of spending 200 pounds to buy same software – e.g. Microsoft price its Windows operation system at similar level in many developed and developing countries, which some people may find it very expensive and unacceptable. Or should Nike stop using low cost labours, but high cost workers that may cause the rise of their prices and many other problems such as unemployment in the developing countries? Are they wrong or right? These questions are still hard to answer, but it is clear that the utilitarian principle definitely plays an important role in our moral decisions.
-- Conclusion --
In conclusion, utilitarianism provides us an appropriate way when people face moral dilemmas. Nowadays, people are becoming more and more different from one to another, and more characterized. As a result, people may focus on considering themselves. However, this could not be the answer "yes" to the question - Should our moral beliefs be based on the utilitarian principle of securing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? If solely based on the utilitarian principle, the answer is no. There is not a single answer to the question, as there is probably no one ethical theory that everyone can agree in the world.
In order to seek happiness, the opposite side should not be dismissed, instead of that, there must be a suitable balance between them, and also a balance between what is "good" and what is "right". If a person performs an ethical action, but the intention is immoral, then more likely, the person is not considered as ethically correct, thus people must not only act right but also think right, in order to be true "right". As the utilitarian principle is being used, especially in dealing with complex problems, it is necessary to take careful and objective evaluation of the consequences; and it also remind us that we should not only consider ourselves, but always look beyond it to the good of all the people.
Utilitarianism, far from being a self-serving approach to moral issues, demands careful, objective, impartial evaluation of consequences. It is a widely used – but often misused – approach to moral evaluation. A powerful tool of moral reasoning, it is a technique well worth mastering. (Business Ethics 1999)