Businesses are concerned with their company image, breaking of the laws in work related duties and any doing that will involve a law suit against the company. This is mainly their reputation and restoring it will involve a lot of money. To avoid all of this, they adapt a moral behavior in knowing what is right and wrong for the company. Therefore ethics are derived from the moral obligations, profit maximization and in following the laws set. In human ethics, an individual is expected to prevent harm, be fair and just, respect the opinion of others, have a heart for others, to be honest and wiling to comply with the law (Pojman, 2004).
In professionalism, there is need for objectivity and impartiality, avoidance of conflict of interest, confidentiality of information, duty of care respected, integrity and full disclosure of information. History of utilitarianism A proposition on utilitarianism lie with Hume but its formulation and understanding credit is received by Bentham. It was incorporated during the 18th century. It was intended to view the principle of utility and the motivation of human beings. They found out that happiness and pain were humans’ utility and that what generates more happiness to many people is the ultimate right.
However, having a large number being happy was difficult thus they settled for principle of happiness to represent utilitarianism. Since then, it has been an influence to economics and used to support different political moves. Introduction Utilitarianism is a principle of moral ethics. It supports that a moral right action in a situation is the one that produces more advantages than disadvantages (Buckle, 2007). Many individuals use this type of ethics in daily decisions as it brings more benefits even if lies or manipulation of others were used.
It is easily aid sin decision making process. The required courses of actions are identified then their advantages and disadvantages in value are highlighted and lastly the action that generates more advantages is then selected to be morally right. It is characterized by the relevant consequences, impartiality and neutrality of the action as every person’s happiness is counted the same. The act and rule utilitarianism are its types and have been competing on which real should be followed. In act, what benefits the people more is the right morals despite their different feelings.
However, the rule type acknowledges the justice, fairness and benefits a large number of people. Therefore the rule values the people feelings, their laws and the benefits. They both have problems in comparing the exact consequences value in money and happiness since they all differ. They believe in obligation to the society and not the act of being a heroine. Since it is consequences on choice, they tend to predict the future. However, act type will be favorable to one today and may be unfavorable the next day. The rule type on the other hand, is very instable on what is actually morally right.
Utilitarianism can be objective in supporting the effect that the rightness of an activity is whether it would indeed encourage and promote the goodness of the already available acts to the agents. On the other side, it can take the form of subjective utilitarianism. It involves that when choosing an activity one should first determine which activities of those available would mostly promote the good more than the others, then chose that activity. Critics against utilitarianism It is difficult t assign value in money form to certain items and acts such as human life, happiness, pain, pleasure and more feelings (Pojman, 2004).
They could be representing opposition’s ideas in the sense that someone’s pleasure could be another individual’s pain. This does make the comparison of values difficult for a person to choose what action will give a high better pleasure. The benefits and costs value may be underestimated or overestimated. This principle violates the human conscious acts and the different personal ideas in interest of more valuable advantages of an action. It’s like it gives us permission to do harm but specifically little harm in order to gain. In protest then, little or more harm is still harm, it never changes.
Lying for the sake of saving more benefits represents an injustice to human kind. It does not promote justice but rules in favor of injustice. It is difficult to know how right an action is when the law seconds some offences committed with the excuse of the principle of utilitarianism. It does not follow the law guide thus can at all times be interchanged to commit evil. The integrity, reputation and image of a person are lost with utilitarianism ethics. The consequences of a lie for the sake of creating more profits to a company, kills the integrity that was taught of being present.
Maintenance of reputation is not easy and therefore loosing the little you have will mean a slow start in creating another image. It does not encourage creativity and development of products and services as it tends to cut out considerations of new ideas generation. To other individual this is a difference making on what and how they feel. They argue that each one is responsible for what hey do and not the value of how they do it. An individual might be creative and willing to undertake his idea a step ahead and fulfill it, may not succeed at all if the majority umber do not support his idea.
Therefore, a chance of having had to grow an idea in other people no matte how good it would have been, is lost because of this system. It relies entirely on a single principle of ethics thus an action committed could either produce best or worst consequences despite the argument that it will provide more benefits. Different principles in deciding what is right or wrong have to be used on a single action so as to make the solution effective and efficient. It uses the human being as means to an end of suitable action by only considering happiness and equating it as the main pleasure of a person.
By only counting happiness, it encourages individuals to do the right things for an entire wrong reason. After all, they can justify the evil doing as their happiness. The theory also concentrate on a belief that human are common in nature thus desires same things. It discourages the individual’s tastes and preferences. Some people even appreciate more things than others who do not even take an account of the thing presence. Humans are very different in personalities and their goals also differ. Grouping them a sonly one group of nature, is not justice and happiness at all.
It does not take into considerations the potential intention of an individual in carrying out an action. An individual could be fulfilling his evil motives on an individual but ends up defending himself using the utility benefits thus being set free and innocent. Every action should be accounted for legally so truth of right and wrong could be identified. A person stealing money and justifying it that it was to be used for a sick person medical expenses, might b lying or not. He might be a thief in the making. Critics in support of utilitarianism In human moral life, majority value the self sacrificial factor and happiness.
Utilitarianism supports these morals in their decisions as some are sacrificed and the happiness of the people affected by the consequence mattering a lot (Mayer, 2009). An individual known for self sacrificial mostly promotes peace, loyalty and unity. If an organization is willing to sacrifice some items for the entire society benefits, it is received well and brings happiness which is the goal of utilitarianism. It promotes equality, impartiality, fairness and neutrality in all its decisions (Buckle, 2007). This is because to them no one deserves special treatment at the expense of another as they are all equal.
A decision is basically made from everybody’s point of view with consideration of the majority. If the majority needs a company closed down, then that percentage would be a representation that every individual of that area wants the company closed. The consideration of the outcome of an activity is important. This theory is in support of knowing the consequences first before undertaking an action. The consequences received should be of great value that would not contribute to pain but joy. These would prepare the users to face the outcome with an open mind as they had been expecting it.
They could be outcomes based on researches or people personal experiences. In addition, it aids in future planning of activities leading to enhancement of efficiency. This system is straightforward and direct in evaluation because it conveniently uses one denominator in its evaluation calculations. Therefore, it becomes easy in resolving conflict interests for straightforward answers to the decision. An easy way to resolve things is many people choice as many of them understand it, support it and ready to conceptualize into their daily activities.
This ensures less money and minimal time spent in evaluations process. Nietzsche on ethical concept, background and theories He explained that the existence of structure theories is as a result of leaders who dominate their decisions over others. He argues that it is through self consciousness that one can determine the evil and the good with its both doers. He did not support the utilitarianism principle of ethics and argued that it placed too much emphasis on the large numbers of people instead of an individual that his personal welfare is lost to the general crowd.
In addition, his other reason was that humans do things just to survive in this world even if they were unpleasant or unhappy. Utilitarianism show there is a wrong and a right but according to him this are the terms men use to interpret a situation or experience. He believes human will be motivated by to many thing snot only pleasure, happiness and pain. Aristotle ethical concepts, background and theories He showed that conduct depended on the role of an individual habit. He said that it was in between pleasures and pain that allowed one to choose which indeed was right or wrong.
Being a business minded person, he advices that the root to fairness, justice and happiness is in asking questions. He does not uses utility in his work but stresses that the behavior of a person is what is reflected on his performance and goodness, thus supporting the theory of virtue of ethics and not consequences (History of Utilitarianism, 2009). He campaigned that happiness of a person could only be known after his life and thus could not be short termed using utilitarianism. Conclusions
Utilitarianism should take into account that not only making people happy is a pleasure but also involving one in the success of the project, institution, a career and a cause to ensure that they are committed. Many people though support it because it is easy to use, they have practice of using it daily and it tends to avoid the divine revelation of living morally but outside the belief in a supernatural being. A person deciding should include other principles and theories of ethics that are likely to affect an action and determine if they are right or wrong.
They could use principle of; virtue, moral right, egoism, deontological, justice and fairness and their emotions reflected in their feelings. This would give a wide reflection balance of the choice picked. In all the actions an individual undertakes from a selection, he should first weigh their goodness and badness and not necessarily through its money value alone. One should be able to know how the action would affect him, the law and the society. An evil action such as killing a corrupt leader for money should not be justified that it made everyone evil that had fallen into his corrupt evils.