Philosophy 223
Normative Ethical Theory:
Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology
Our Task
 If we are going to make any headway towards
our goal of increasing our capacity to manage
the moral dimensions of our business lives, we
have to develop answers to this question:
“What constitutes an acceptable ethical
standard for business practice, and by what
authority is the standard acceptable” (18).
 We considered (and considered reasons to
reject) two possible standards: relativism and
egoism. We also identified some features of
any theory that would be successful.
A Family of Theories
 Consequentialism is the name given to a family of more
specific normative ethical positions, all of which share
the conviction that it is the consequences of actions
which determine their moral worth.
 All of these positions are committed to the following
claims.
 Right action is to be understood entirely in terms of the
overall intrinsic value of the consequences of the action
compared with the overall intrinsic value of the consequences
associated with alternative actions an agent might perform
instead. An action is right iff its consequences would be at
least as good as the consequences of any alternative action
that the agent might instead perform.
Implications
 There are a number of important implications
of these claims.
1. Consequentialist theories are value-based.
2. They are comparative theories. They make specific
reference to alternative actions and the rightness or
wrongness of any action is dependent on the value of
the consequences of those actions.
3. The consequentialist account of right action is a
maximizing conception.
4. Consequentialism is an impartialist ethical theory. We
have to consider the consequences for everyone and
everyone counts equally.
It’s all in the family
 The various specific forms of consequentialism
share a commitment to these basic claims.
 They differ in their Theory of The Good (19):
the identification of the value which the
ethical theory picks out.
 The TG of Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic value
with human welfare or happiness (the expression of
human welfare).
Utilitarianism
 The basic idea of U is that the rightness or
wrongness of actions is determined by the their
effect on human welfare or happiness, with
maximization and impartiality assumed.
 Measure of this effect is called Utility: the net value
of the consequences of actions.
 Result is the Principle of Utility, the theory of
right action of utilitarianism.
 An action is right iff its performance would likely
produce at least as high a utility value as would any
other alternative action.
What Makes You Fare Well?
 An important issue that all utilitarians must address
is how to understand human welfare.
 Classical utilitarians (J. S. Mill, J. Bentham)
identify happiness (and thus human welfare) with
pleasure and the absence of pain.
 For this reason they are labeled Hedonistic
Utilitarians.
 How does adopting the hedonistic point of view
alter the PU?
Mill’s “Greatest Happiness Principle”
 We can see how specific accounts of “the good”
produce specific instances of the principle of utility
by thinking about the consequences of Mill’s
identification of the good as happiness.
 Mill’s TRA is called the Greatest Happiness
Principle, and it states, “Actions are right…in
proportion to their tendency to promote happiness
or the absence of pain, and wrong insofar as the
tend to produce pain or displeasure” (19).
The GHP and Business
 There are some clear points of contact between
Mill’s Utilitarianism and values typically articulated
in the business world.
 The maximizing implications of U, when approached in terms of
efficiency are clearly congenial to business interests.
 Cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, management by
objectives are all business tools significantly influenced by U.
 The TG of classical utilitarianism is no longer as influential as it
once was, but has been replaced by a “preference theory.”
 Finally, one particularly attractive feature of U for business
people is it’s explicit reference to measurement.
Utilitarianism in Action
 Applying consequentialism requires calculation and
comparison.
 Calculation can refer to an overt calculus or a more
informal estimation. The explicit goal of the
calculation is to identify the action/rule that
maximizes the specified value(s).
 Comparison must include all parties affected (in a
relevant or significant way) by the proposed action.
Act v. Rule Utilitarianism
 Consideration of the role of calculation
leads to an important distinction between
Act and Rule Utilitarianism.
 Act Utilitarianism: “in all situations one ought to perform
that act that leads to the greatest good for the greatest
number” (21).
 Rule Utilitarianism: in all situations one ought to act in
accordance with the rule that leads to the greatest good
for the greatest number.
Evaluating Utilitarianism

Remember our evaluative features?
1. Determinacy: produces normative verdicts
2. Consistency: in normative verdicts
3. Intuitive Appeal: verdicts should be consistent with
our intuitions.
4. Explanatory Power: ability to account for considered
moral judgments.

How does Utilitarianism do?
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
 One sort of criticism often directed at U
concerns the difficulty of measuring the
good(s) which the theory highlights.
 This problem is often cited as an advantage of preference
utilitarianism.
 Another sort of criticism concerns U’s
inability to account for goods other than the
specified one.
 Problem of Justice
Immanuel Kant
 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) revolutionized philosophical
ethics. Prior to Kant, people sought the origin of morality in
the natural order, in the ends proper to human beings, or in
feelings. In contrast, Kant seeks the conditions of the
possibility of morality and locates them in autonomy: the
will’s capacity for self-legislation.
 Why in a capacity of the will? Because a good will is
intrinsically good, other features of our character are
potentially turned to evil, and as a matter of psychological
fact reason is not particularly suited to produce happiness.
Deontological Ethics
 Due to its focus on the will, Kant’s ethics
are deontological: actions are morally right
to the extent that they derive from motives
of duty, as opposed to motives of
inclination.
 When we think about moral obligation, he
argued, what we need to account for is its
categorical character, the fact that it
commands us absolutely.
What’s with the Categorical?
 Kant is convinced that everything in nature acts
according to laws. We are unique in that we do so
consciously, in obedience to laws of reason.
 These laws of reason Kant calls imperatives.
 Following his account of obligation, Kant makes a
distinction between hypothetical and categorical
imperatives.
 A law of reason (imperative) is hypothetical when the will is
conditionally commanded relative to some end (think prudence).
 A categorical imperative, on the other hand, commands
absolutely, that is unconditionally.
What about the TRA?
 Reflection on the categorical character of moral
obligation leads Kant to a TRA that is also his
fundamental moral principle: the Categorical
Imperative.
 Applying the categorical imperative to proposed actions
provides a principle of moral evaluation, directing us to
the right actions.
 There are a number of formulations of the CI. We are
going to look at two: one that emphasizes the moral
dignity of persons, and one that focuses on the
universalizability of moral claims.
CI: Humanity Formulation
 CIHumanity: An action is right iff the action treats persons
(including oneself) as ends in themselves rather than as
means to our ends.
 There is both a negative (don’t treat them as means)
and a positive (treat them as ends in themselves)
requirement contained in the formulation.
 The positive requirement is captured by Kant with the
notion of dignity, which all rational agents possess by virtue
of their being rational.
CI: Universal Law
 CIUniversal Law: Act always in such a way that you
can will the maxim of your action to be universal
law.
 Maxim: the subjective principle of an action (In situation X,
I will do Y to accomplish Z).
 Despite the proximity of this formulation to the
Golden Rule, it is really quite different. The UL
formulation imposes a consistency requirement.
 You should only act in such a way that everyone
else should act and that it is possible for them to
act.
Criticisms of Kantian Ethics
 Some have argued that Kant’s focus on the categorical
nature of moral obligation results in an overly narrow
conception of morality.
 What is the role of moral emotions or sentiments like
sympathy?
 Another common criticism is that Kant’s ethics are too
rigorous.
 The example of lying.