utilitarianism?

example
Probably the most widely understood and commonly applied ethical theory is
utilitarianism. In an organisational context, utilitarianism basically states that a decision
concerning business conduct is proper if and only if that decision produces the greatest
good for the greatest number of individuals.Good is usually defined as the net benefits
that accrue to those parties affected by the choice. Thus, most utilitarians hold the
position that moral choices must be evaluated by calculating the net benefits of each
available alternative action.Importantly, all the stakeholders affected by the decision
should be given their just consideration.
Strengths Weaknesses
- Useful for decision-making - May ignore wrongs
- Flexible - May conflict with justice
- Recognizes interests of all - Difficult to design rules
- Resolves conflict of interest

If the benefits are sufficiently great and the problems with the side effects sufficiently
limited, then the action of the pharmaceutical company may be justified on act
utilitarian grounds. For act utilitarians, rules are just rules of thumb. For rule
utilitarians, rules are determinate of right and wrong.
A second formulation, rule utilitarianism, looks at whether the option or choice
conforms to a rule that attempts to maximize the overall utility. Rule utilitarians, then,
focus on the rules for acting rather than on individual actions themselves. For a rule
utilitarian, a rule is morally correct when it provides more social good than any
alternative rule.
EXAMPLE 1: To use an example from banking, suppose a banker is considering
whether it is right to foreclose on the mortgage of a widow and her children. To consider
that action in isolation, it is fairly easy to show on act utilitarian grounds that foreclosure
would cause more pain than not foreclosing. However, suppose we had a rule that said
that banks should not foreclose whenever the action of foreclosing would cause more
harm than foreclosing. If that rule were adopted, then banks would be reluctant to lend
money. Thus, the rule permitting foreclosure on widows is better for society than a rule
that forbids such disclosure.
EXAMPLE 2:One very good example is the airlines industry. We all know that business
class passengers pay a premium price to get all the luxuries of that class that the airline
offers. Now, if you know the huge difference between the price of an economy class ticket
and a business class ticket, do you think that the extra amenities that are being offered to
the business class travelers, traveling for the same amount of time as the economy class,
really worth the exorbitant price? Now, once you come to delve deeper into this, you'll
realize that the premium price charged from the business class travelers - the ones who
can easily afford it - are actually used to ease out the burden of deficit that the airline
would have to bear if it is to allow the economy class passengers the opportunity for air
travel at a lower price. The principle also plays in case of discriminatory pricing
strategies of companies when pricing products for different customer segments having
different income levels.



Ethical Relativism?example
What is ethical relativism?

Ethical relativism is the view that what is right and wrong can only be determined or
justified relative to the standards of the individual, group or culture in question. More
specifically, cultural ethical relativism can be stated as follows:

Ethical standards vary from culture to culture; therefore, there are no universal
moral standards which apply across cultures.

EXAMPLE 1: On this view, female genital mutilation (FGM) is not wrong in Somalia
because the practice accords with local tradition, but it is deeply wrong here because it is
contrary to Canadian gender equality (amongst other reasons).

Ethical relativism appeals to many people. But as we shall see, it leads to a number of
inconsistent and unsatisfactory conclusions. First, let us make an important distinction,
for there are two main types of ethical relativism:

Descriptive relativism notes that there are differences among cultures ethical
practices and standards without saying anything about their justification.

Prescriptive relativism goes further and claims that people ought not to apply the
standards of one culture to evaluating the behaviour of another culture. This is
usually called cultural relativism.

If it is true that people ought not to judge the morality of another groups behaviour,
then people in the developing world cannot criticize the much higher per capita
consumption of resources in the developed world. Why? Because the standards of the
developing world cannot be used to judge the behaviour of people in other parts of the
world.

Example 2: Or, in the context of business, imagine that a certain business tortured or
murdered its employees whenever they did a poor job. Even if all of the employees of
that company approved of the practice, surely this does not make it morally permissible!
It is just plain morally wrong to murder your employees, regardless of what anyone
believes.
Example 3 :
If morality were relative to ones culture, there would be no basis for claiming that the
practice of any other culture is morally wrong, no matter how atrocious their deeds
seemed to us. For instance, if there were a society that practiced cannibalism, there
would be no basis for us to condemn their actions. Of course, since OUR society believes
cannibalism is morally wrong, it IS morally wrong for us (according to relativism. But,
so long as their society APPROVED of cannibalism, it would NOT be morally wrong for
THEM to cannibalize each other