Utilitarianism & Business Ethics

Leads to different results

• Greatest good of shareholders - produce profit e.g. Friedman

• Greatest good for stakeholders - how can you balance all of this at once? Is it possible?

• Does the greatest good constantly changes? - Can we form a rule which would be beneficially applied to business ethics in regards to maximising pleasure and minimising pain?

Debatable on CSR

• Weight balance of good/harm for all those with interest or stake in the business and whether this is worth being put at risk - this is difficult to predict

• Act may argue that sometimes a company can justify in breaking rules to create greater happiness and so there should not be whistleblowing

• Rule may suggest companies should always follow an ethical code of whistleblowing, even if in a particular instance it creates more happiness not to whistle blow

Debatable on Whistleblowing

• “Greatest good” can be understood in global terms and globalisation has helped many people

• Most countries engage in worldwide trade which shows it must be beneficial to the majority

• But does it actually lead to the greatest good or only deepen global inequalities?

Debatable on good ethics is good business (Globalisation)

• May be too hard to apply in dynamic, fast-paced business environments, e.g. the Hedonic Calculus is difficult to apply

• There is difficulty in quantifying cost and benefit between stakeholders and shareholders

• Act and rule would be different! Act would take each situation in isolation whereas rule would establish general rule which enable business to be good, such as ‘good ethics is good business’

Debatable on Good Ethics is Good Business