The Basic Principle of Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Question three The general features of an action that determine whether it is morally right or wrong Morality refers to the principles that distinguish between right and wrong. It is the particular value system and principles of behavior that are held by a specific society based on the cultural, philosophical, and religious beliefs of the society (Smart and Williams 50). Most philosophers assert that the motive of a person is a significant determinant whether an action is morally right or wrong while other outline that the intention is a key feature of morally right actions (Rachels 18). Accordingly, others assert that moral right or wrong depends on the existing virtue system while other outline that it depends on the duty owed to the person. Interestingly, other theories assert that the distinction between moral right or wrong depends on the outcomes or consequences of the action such as the utility, happiness or pain associated with the action (Wood 56). The study of moral right or wrong and the key features that determine whether an action is morally right or wrong has been dominated by the opposition between deontology and consequentialism (teleology). According to consequentialism, the right-making qualities of an action are the consequences unlike deontologist who assert that an act is right or wrong in itself (Rachels 10). Utilitarianism and Kantianism differ in several ways in determining if an action is morally right or wrong. According to Kant, human beings should look at their maxims, or intentions of the particular act since human beings are considered rational beings. Immanuel Kant deontological theory argues that moral requirements are based on a rational standard referred as ‘categorical imperative’ and all actions that violate the standard are considered irrational (Wood 34). According to First formulation (the formula of universal law), one should act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. The maxim is a rule or principle on which one should act in accordance with this universal moral law. The second principles of Kant’s formulation outlines that one should act in such a way that you treat humanity as an end in itself and not merely as a means to an end. In this case, a morally right act should be in line with the requirement of human dignity since rationality is a salient feature of humans and source of autonomy and dignity (Wood 89). A moral agent is thus obligated to respect this human dignity and value in oneself and in others. The third formulation offered by Kant is that moral agents should act in such as way that your are both legislated and legislator in the kingdom of ‘Ends’. This is a reciprocity principle that outlines one should be fair in all perspectives and one should act in a way that endorses same morals (Rachels 30). On the other hand, Utilitarianism asserts that a moral right should lead to the greatest amount of happiness. According to Mill, the morality of an action should be determined by the consequences and this depends on the theory of intrinsic value. Bentham asserts that a moral action should maximize happiness since it is the only thing with intrinsic value. Pleasure is defined as the freedom from pain or desirable things that have inherent pleasure or things that are means to pleasure and prevention of pain (Rachels 34). Bentham analyzed the concept of happiness and outlined that it is a balance of pleasure over pain and moral actions should lead to more pleasure than pain (Rachels 31). Bentham equates good with pleasure and outlines that pleasure is capable of quantification through use of metrics such as duration, certainty and intensity. Mill outlines that no all pleasures are equally worthy since a formula of quantifying the costs and benefits of an action is essential though complicated. Mill adjusted the hedonistic tendencies in Bentham’s philosophy and outlined that it is not the quantity, but quality of pleasure that forms utilitarianism. In this case, a moral right or wrong is determined using the greatest happiness principle. In the Act utilitarianism, the utility principle is applied directly to each alternative action thus leading to possibility of justifying immoral actions. However, rule-utilitarianism ensures that the principle of utility determines the validity of moral principles (Smart and Williams 50). Proponents of Kant’s account on moral right or wrong assert that it is impartial, rational and consistent since moral absolutes cannot be violated and there are not exceptions of self-serving interests. However, people are generally self-interested and there is a high probability that one will act according to own personal gains before committing the action. Kant’s account of morality considers the intrinsic worth of human beings since humans have dignity, rights and intrinsic moral value (Rachels 56). However, Kant’s account fails to account for exceptional situations such as assisted suicide cases in terminally ill patients. In this case, utilitarianism principle that requires maximization of pleasure may be more applicable for a doctor to determine whether to assist the terminally-ill patient in committing suicide. Proponents of utilitarianism approach assert that it is intuitive in general and links happiness with morality. Utilitarianism promotes social harmony since it balances interests with those of others and is sensitive to circumstances since Act utilitarianism is sensitive to circumstances unlike Rule utilitarianism that aims at generally maximizing pleasure (Rachels 78). However, utilitarianism faces certain criticism since it lacks autonomy and may require a moral agent to commit morally reprehensible acts such as in interrogation of terrorist suspects Conclusion According to Kant’s account, one should act according to the categorical imperative and treat other with humanity. In this case, an act is morally right if it conforms to the universal maxim. The basic principle of utilitarianism asserts that actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. According to utilitarianism, acts are morally right or wrong depending on the outcomes of the acts, the more good the consequences the more right is the act. The agent should estimate the associated costs and benefits of the action and choose the alternative that leads to the greatest sum of utility. In this case, a person should choose actions that maximize good consequences thus as human welfare. Work Cited: Rachels, Stuart. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 2009. Smart, J.C.C and Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009. Wood, Allen. Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. Question five Moral controversy regarding sweatshops The definition of sweatshops is broad and describes any company with unreasonable authoritative overseers, poor working conditions, or factories that employ child labor (Wight and Morton 142). The International Labor Rights Forum describes sweatshops as an organization that violates the labor law concerning wages, working conditions, safety and disciplinary methods. From an economic point of view, international sweatshops are lucrative due to low-wage labor in developing countries and low production costs (Rachels 90). In the recent years, human rights and labor activists have criticized both American and off-shore manufacturing companies for exploitation of workers. However, those who defend sweatshops argue that their actions lead to more benefits for the workers in the long-term than the harm ((and Morton 163). The opponents of sweatshops argue that violations of labor laws overlook human rights and dignity since human beings should not be treated as a means not an end, but as an ends itself (Rachels 101). On the other hand, off-shore manufacturing companies assert that their actions aim at minimizing operating costs, increasing product cycle time, and increasing manufacturing capacity thus ultimately leading to more benefits for the society than harm. Sweatshops violate the respect of human dignity, but their long-term actions lead to more benefits since they are the better employment alternative in developing countries. Sweatshops have attracted moral controversy since critics assert that sweatshops violate labor laws thus exploiting workers in the developing countries. However, proponents of sweatshops claim that such multinationals offer the best alternative for employment and thus their actions lead to more utility for the developing countries in the long-term (Wight and Morton 73). The critics of international sweatshops ground their arguments on the need to respect human rights and dignity. Kantian moral theory argues against the actions of international sweatshops. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative requires the multinational companies to treat humanity as an end and not as a means to an end. The basic idea is the morality requires that we respect inherent dignity of people (Powell 78). From this perspective, employees have dignity unlike machines or capital that is not rational. Employees are capable of self-governance as free beings and thus should be provided with the freedom and responsibility. This means that sweatshops should not implement authoritarian rules that create discourage individual responsibility to direct their own jobs (Rachels 69). The doctrine of respect of persons goes further than increasing the GDP of the host country or incomes of the employees since morality of sweatshops should be concerned with the people capabilities and provide decent work that enhances the positive freedom and life of the worker. Accordingly, the UN human rights charter is aligned with Kantian views and requires employees to have decent work that is free from exploitation or violation of the rule of law in order to foster the realization of individual human potential. Thomas Hill outlines that treating workers as ends in themselves require the sweatshops to support certain capacities including the capacity to reason and act individually (Wight and Morton 201). The multinationals should refrain from undermining the rational capacities through refraining from forced overtime, coercion and providing fair wages to the workers. According to duty and virtue ethics arguments, sweatshops should pursue actions that enhance workers welfare since employers have a duty of beneficence and justice to their workers. The employers should undertake measures to minimize the negative externalities such as create a safe and healthy working environment by removing poisonous effluents (Rachels 125). The sweatshops contribute to the widening income gap between the developed and developing nations since the host countries get lower share of profits as much of the earnings are repatriated to the developed countries. The multinational have a moral obligation to ensure equal development across the world through supporting the economic development of their host country and building the rational and moral capabilities of the workers in the host country (Powell 88). Defenses of sweatshops According to the defenses, sweatshops are better for the workers that available alternatives since regulation of international sweatshops will lead to high unemployment. Most citizens in developing countries lack meaningful employment thus regulating the minimum wages will reduce the level of employment in the country (Rachels 136). The workers voluntarily accept sweatshop employment thus indicating that international sweatshops offer better alternatives. According to consequentialism morality, sweatshops operations lead to the highest happiness and utility for the workers since people would be unemployed if the sweatshops did not exist (Powell 73). Utilitarian morality outlines that moral actions should lead to greater sum of utility and sweatshops lead to more utility to the workers in the long-term. For instance, sweatshops allow the developing countries to grow their economies through collection of taxes, creation of jobs and exports thus leading to more positive consequences than the harm suffered by the few exploited workers (Rachels 76). According to classical libertarian argument, sweatshops should be self-regulating and regulation will lead to additional costs to the workers since imposing minimum wages may lead to labor market disequilibrium thus creating additional costs for the workers such as high prices for the manufactured goods or reduction in the labor demanded (Wight and Morton 190). Conclusion Sweatshops act in a manner that contravenes human dignity and thus violate Kant’s second formulation of moral action. Sweatshops violate human rights and their actions are morally wrong since they prohibit the rational and moral development of the workers in developing countries. In this case, a regulation that requires multinational organizations to start paying their employees in developing countries minimum wages and eliminate any forced overtime is essential in ensuring such companies behave morally. The companies should have procedures for dealing with disciplinary fines and policies that prohibit abusive treatment of workers. The companies should provide a safe and healthy working environment in order to reduce work-related accidents. Child labor should be abolished and chemicals should be labeled in the dominant local language. Works Cited: Powell, Benjamin. Out of poverty: sweatshops in the global economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2014. Rachels, Stuart. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 2009. Wight, Jonathan and Morton, John. Teaching the ethical foundations of economics. London: Council of Economic Education. 2007. Read More