Based on your concerns about the intended layoffs in the company, the company has looked keenly on the consequences the layoff will bring to your life. It has seen that its action will lead to loosing your house to the mortgager due to lack of finances to pay for the house and it will also affect your childs education may be by causing the child to drop out of college. This will eventually leave you to suffer for lack of a shelter and loss of money that had been paid for the mortgage and this is a form of unhappiness to you .As a parent too, discontinuity of your child education will cause unhappiness both to you and your child and affect the future development of the child. As a result of this, the company has seen that their action will cause more harm than good to your life and has finally decided you will not be laid off.
Pros and Cons of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical decision making approach that argues that human action should be to bring about the best possible results from their action. Utilitarian acknowledges only one principle of morality which is utility. The principle state that in all our action, we should focus on producing the best overall consequences for all those who will be affected by our actions. Utilitarian requires that agent to be strictly impartial to their own happiness.
Utilitarianism has both its advantages and disadvantages in decision making. One of it advantage is the attempt it has made to look beyond the individual own interest in deciding which action to take. According to utilitarianism, any individual must always consider the impact their action will have on others with his well-being weighing less than for others. Agents own happiness is not the determining standard of what is right or wrong but that of all affected by the action (Scarre, 1996).
Despite this, utilitarianism is not acceptable in moral decision making and especially in the Christian perspective. It is commonly accepted in the Christian realms that we should always stand for the truth or tell the truth. This is contrary to utilitarianism because a utilitarian will promote to tell a lie if telling the truth will cause unhappiness and pain. For example, if telling a married woman that her husband has been trying to have an affair with me will cause more pain to the woman. Then utilitarianism will opt for not telling the truth to avoid the unhappiness. But morally it is good to tell the woman the truth (Scarre, 1996).
Another disadvantage of utilitarianism is that it can easily be used to undermine rights of an individual or minority over the majority. According to utilitarianism, they are concerned with the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This means that if an action will affect a small group of people or one individual for that matter and cause great happiness to many people, then the action is right even if it is causing pain to a few (Scarre, 1996).
Utilitarianism is also found to be wanting in the principle of justice. Principle of justice demands that a person be treated fairly and reward and punishment to people be based on their own merits. In such circumstances, utilitarian can easily be used to violate this principle of justice. If a person did something wrong and deserve to be punished, utilitarian will be against such decision because punishment in it self will bring unhappiness and pain to the person and every action in utilitarian approach is to bring happiness and avoid pain.
Utilitarianism Approach in Decision Making
Utilitarianism approach in my opinion is not the best approach in making moral decision. First, this approach is not practical in the real world. Focusing on other people happiness without considering other factors that may be playing role may not bring the desired outcome or may yield short term happiness to the individual (Scarre, 1996). An example is for our case where the management using the utilitarian approach decided to stop the laying off of its workers to avoid causing them unhappiness. In the long run, the workers will be happy because they will retain their jobs but the future of the company is at the verge of collapsing. The company wanted to lay off the workers because it was going through financial crisis and this action would have saved the company from collapsing. Retaining the workers was only going to put more pressure on the company and the company final will collapse. With the collapse of the company the worker who we did not want to make unhappy will loose their job and be unhappy and it will also cause the unhappiness of the agent and both stand losers.
The second point why utilitarianism is not a good approach is that it ignores our sense of duty. In any given society individual have their own responsibilities which they are supposed to carry out correctly. Doing or failing to undertake such duty comes with a reward or a punishment. In our contemporary society, every individual is expected to behave and respect others. Imagine a situation where a man decides to steal from another. This person is supposed to be punished for he was not dutiful to his neighbor. If it happens that I witnessed this person stealing, then it is my duty to report this person for him to be punished according to his merit. A utilitarian will choose not to tell the truth and rather lie because his action of telling the truth will cause suffering of another person. This then denies him from carrying out his duty as expected by the society (Scarre, 1996).
Another reason of not using utilitarianism is that it has the problem of moral luck. According to this approach, it is the effect that decides whether the action is good or not. This means that even action that are universally good or moral are perceived to be immoral by utilitarian if their effects are not desirable or do ot bring happiness (Scarre, 1996). Telling the truth is universally accepted as a moral or good action. However telling the truth will not in all circumstance bring happiness to an individual. Then telling the truth that will cause unhappiness is considered evil by utilitarian. Suppose a utilitarian is in place where there is racial strives and he witness a black man raping a white woman. His testimony will bring conviction of the black man. This utilitarian will be have the duty to give a false witness aand avoid causing pain to the black which is morally wrong. This then means that utilitarianism can be used to propagate vice in the society.
Utilitarianism is not also a good approach because it ignores the principle of justice. Justice demands that individuals be rewarded or punished according to their own merit and all people to be treated fairly and equally (Scarre, 1996). In the case that we have cited above of a rapist, a utilitarian will ignore the principle of justice to avoid causing pain to the rapist. He will also treat the woman unfairly because his false testimony will prevent the woman from receiving any compensation from the perpetrator though she deserve it from justice point of view. The perpetrator on the other hand deserve a punishment to act as a deterrant to repeat the offense but he does not get it.
Another problem with utilitarianism is that it does not consider the long term effect of an action (Scarre, 1996). Failing lay off workers in our case of high-tech company will only produce short term benefit to the workers but in the future, the individual will be subject to long suffering when the company eventually collapse. May be it would have been better if the company laid off the workers and have time to strategize a fresh and revamp it back. This would mean that the workers would have been called back thus making their suffering short term. The collapse of the company would mean long term effect to the worker and this is what the utilitarianism approach could have led to.
Making decision in life always aims at maximizing happiness to an individual. This fact is well represented by utilitarian approach. But in the rear world, achieving happiness is not always achieved by avoiding pain and suffering but rather by considering other factors that may affect that happiness more so in the long term. This then implies that making decision should not be purely be based on utility but a compromise is necessary among other approaches to achieve long term benefits.
Pros and Cons of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical decision making approach that argues that human action should be to bring about the best possible results from their action. Utilitarian acknowledges only one principle of morality which is utility. The principle state that in all our action, we should focus on producing the best overall consequences for all those who will be affected by our actions. Utilitarian requires that agent to be strictly impartial to their own happiness.
Utilitarianism has both its advantages and disadvantages in decision making. One of it advantage is the attempt it has made to look beyond the individual own interest in deciding which action to take. According to utilitarianism, any individual must always consider the impact their action will have on others with his well-being weighing less than for others. Agents own happiness is not the determining standard of what is right or wrong but that of all affected by the action (Scarre, 1996).
Despite this, utilitarianism is not acceptable in moral decision making and especially in the Christian perspective. It is commonly accepted in the Christian realms that we should always stand for the truth or tell the truth. This is contrary to utilitarianism because a utilitarian will promote to tell a lie if telling the truth will cause unhappiness and pain. For example, if telling a married woman that her husband has been trying to have an affair with me will cause more pain to the woman. Then utilitarianism will opt for not telling the truth to avoid the unhappiness. But morally it is good to tell the woman the truth (Scarre, 1996).
Another disadvantage of utilitarianism is that it can easily be used to undermine rights of an individual or minority over the majority. According to utilitarianism, they are concerned with the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This means that if an action will affect a small group of people or one individual for that matter and cause great happiness to many people, then the action is right even if it is causing pain to a few (Scarre, 1996).
Utilitarianism is also found to be wanting in the principle of justice. Principle of justice demands that a person be treated fairly and reward and punishment to people be based on their own merits. In such circumstances, utilitarian can easily be used to violate this principle of justice. If a person did something wrong and deserve to be punished, utilitarian will be against such decision because punishment in it self will bring unhappiness and pain to the person and every action in utilitarian approach is to bring happiness and avoid pain.
Utilitarianism Approach in Decision Making
Utilitarianism approach in my opinion is not the best approach in making moral decision. First, this approach is not practical in the real world. Focusing on other people happiness without considering other factors that may be playing role may not bring the desired outcome or may yield short term happiness to the individual (Scarre, 1996). An example is for our case where the management using the utilitarian approach decided to stop the laying off of its workers to avoid causing them unhappiness. In the long run, the workers will be happy because they will retain their jobs but the future of the company is at the verge of collapsing. The company wanted to lay off the workers because it was going through financial crisis and this action would have saved the company from collapsing. Retaining the workers was only going to put more pressure on the company and the company final will collapse. With the collapse of the company the worker who we did not want to make unhappy will loose their job and be unhappy and it will also cause the unhappiness of the agent and both stand losers.
The second point why utilitarianism is not a good approach is that it ignores our sense of duty. In any given society individual have their own responsibilities which they are supposed to carry out correctly. Doing or failing to undertake such duty comes with a reward or a punishment. In our contemporary society, every individual is expected to behave and respect others. Imagine a situation where a man decides to steal from another. This person is supposed to be punished for he was not dutiful to his neighbor. If it happens that I witnessed this person stealing, then it is my duty to report this person for him to be punished according to his merit. A utilitarian will choose not to tell the truth and rather lie because his action of telling the truth will cause suffering of another person. This then denies him from carrying out his duty as expected by the society (Scarre, 1996).
Another reason of not using utilitarianism is that it has the problem of moral luck. According to this approach, it is the effect that decides whether the action is good or not. This means that even action that are universally good or moral are perceived to be immoral by utilitarian if their effects are not desirable or do ot bring happiness (Scarre, 1996). Telling the truth is universally accepted as a moral or good action. However telling the truth will not in all circumstance bring happiness to an individual. Then telling the truth that will cause unhappiness is considered evil by utilitarian. Suppose a utilitarian is in place where there is racial strives and he witness a black man raping a white woman. His testimony will bring conviction of the black man. This utilitarian will be have the duty to give a false witness aand avoid causing pain to the black which is morally wrong. This then means that utilitarianism can be used to propagate vice in the society.
Utilitarianism is not also a good approach because it ignores the principle of justice. Justice demands that individuals be rewarded or punished according to their own merit and all people to be treated fairly and equally (Scarre, 1996). In the case that we have cited above of a rapist, a utilitarian will ignore the principle of justice to avoid causing pain to the rapist. He will also treat the woman unfairly because his false testimony will prevent the woman from receiving any compensation from the perpetrator though she deserve it from justice point of view. The perpetrator on the other hand deserve a punishment to act as a deterrant to repeat the offense but he does not get it.
Another problem with utilitarianism is that it does not consider the long term effect of an action (Scarre, 1996). Failing lay off workers in our case of high-tech company will only produce short term benefit to the workers but in the future, the individual will be subject to long suffering when the company eventually collapse. May be it would have been better if the company laid off the workers and have time to strategize a fresh and revamp it back. This would mean that the workers would have been called back thus making their suffering short term. The collapse of the company would mean long term effect to the worker and this is what the utilitarianism approach could have led to.
Making decision in life always aims at maximizing happiness to an individual. This fact is well represented by utilitarian approach. But in the rear world, achieving happiness is not always achieved by avoiding pain and suffering but rather by considering other factors that may affect that happiness more so in the long term. This then implies that making decision should not be purely be based on utility but a compromise is necessary among other approaches to achieve long term benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment