Utilitarianism Theory: Case Study

In this scenario, Jim’s morally thinking does follow the act utilitarianism theory. Jim weighs his options, of whom he should consider for the job. Jim is using the consequentialism formula to try and figure out what will be the best solution that he can live with morally. But does Jim practice all of the theories that go along with act utilitarianism? Just like in the case Jim believes that he should be acting impartially. Therefore, he is dismissing one of the most important part of the act utilitarian theory. Let’s first examine the formula for consequentialism and see if Jim has followed all of the steps.

To know if Jim is following his moral beliefs, then we have to look at his decision process. According to Shafer-Landau, “Thus, to know whether an action is morally required, we need to do four things: (1) add up all of the benefits it produces, (2) add up all the harm it causes, (3) determine the balance, and (4) see whether the balance is greater than that of any other available action,” ( p 125). First what are the benefits of Jim’s decision? One benefit is

that he is helping a friend get a job, which lead to leading to the overall happiness and well-being of both. Second the harm is, that the other guy will not get the job even though he is more qualified. Third is to balance the two against each other, do the benefits out way the harm. The benefits of the firend getting the job verses the other candidate not getting the job. Final is this balance better than any other options that Jim could have come up with. After going through these steps Jim feels that he should give the job to his friend. By following these steps Jim kept with his moral foundation.
The foundation of Jim’s morals can easily be seen with his decision. According to Shafer-Landau in the book The Ethical Life, “The creed which accepts, as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness,” (p 15). Jim is promoting his friends’ happiness by hiring him. But is also promoting his own happiness by not conflicting with this moral foundation. Along with Jim’s moral foundation he is accessing his results from his actions.
Jim’s thinks his actions will bring around a good result. According to Shafer-Landau, “Actions are right provided they are optimific. But intentions are morally good provided that they are reasonably expected to yield good result,” (p 119). Jim’s actions are optimific, the best possible result, for all concerned. Jim has maximized the overall happiness and well-being of his friend. Plus the benefit that he can be happy in his own right for the decision to help out his friend. According to Shafer-Landau, “Utilitarian can argue that there are still a great many situations in which we should give priority to our near and dear-not because they deserve it or are more important than strangers, but because that is what is most beneficial,” (p 133). It more beneficial for Jim to hire his friend than a stranger. But this can be contradicted utilitarian most important theory of impartiality.
But Jim did go against one of the most important things that attracts people to utilitarianism, and that is his impartiality.

According to Shafer-Landau, “Utilitarianism is a doctrine of impartiality, and this is one of its great strengths. It tells us that the welfare of each person is equally morally important,” (p 119). With that being said Jim did not use his impartiality when it came to hiring his friend. Following the impartiality theory, he should have given the job to the more qualified candidate. According to Shafer-Landau, “The moral point of view is nothing less than an impartial concern for everyone whose well-being may be affected by our actions,” (p 120). Many different things can happen due to Jim’s impartiality. A good example is how does Jim doesn’t know that if the guy didn’t get the job, that he would lose his house. So in a sense the actions of Jim has a negative effect on the

other.
In conclusion, Jim was not right in his decision. Jim did not use impartiality when it came to his decision. Even though his decision benefited not only his friend and him, it hurt the other. Either way someone was going to be hurt or harmed by Jim’s decision. But when it comes to the foundation of morals, one can see both sides of the situation. It’s like that old adage that say damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So is there a clear answer to the situation? Act utilitarianisms always focus on the overall well-being happiness and welfare of people. Utilitarianism try to maximize the goodness of there decisions, plus the results of there actions may not be seen right of, but will be seen in the future. These results might result in consequences, or it may also go in there favor. But no matter the results of Jims actions someone will be not happy and their well-being will be affected.