Utilitarian Theory Essay

1036 Words3 Pages

The utilitarian principle is about weighing up social costs and benefits in order to make moral and social decisions in society. The benefits produced by an action are calculated and the quantities of harm the action will produce are deducted from this. There are two mistakes people make when they first start thinking about utilitarianism. Firstly, choosing the right action is not the one that produces the most utility for the person performing the action, but for all persons affected by the action. Secondly, it is not just the immediate and direct consequences of an action being considered, but all foreseeable future costs and benefits, as well as any important indirect effects. Utilitarianism matches up nicely with many things in today’s …show more content…

The idea here is only when one acts from good will does an action have moral worth. When one acts from duty there is no true moral worth. There is just one command (imperative) that is categorical (the categorical imperative). A categorical imperative uses no ifs, ands or buts – only “do this” or “don’t do that”. Universal acceptability is also linked to this. It is about rational thinking and considering what all other rational people would do morally. Kant also offered another way of looking at the idea of categorical imperative. It is about treating others the same way you want to be treated. There are two ways of reformulating Kant’s categorical imperative. First is that an action is right only if the agent would be willing to be so treated were the positions of the parties reversed. Second is that one must always act so as to treat other people as ends in themselves. Kant’s theory has application for organisations too. Categorical imperative gives rules to follow in moral decision making, there is emphasis on individuals in terms of organisational decision-making, and motivation and acting on principle is key. There are however 3 critiques of Kant’s ethics; what has moral worth, is the categorical imperative an adequate test of right and what does it mean to treat people as

Open Document