Utilitarian Ethical Model - Example

University Utilitarian Ethical Model Submitted to …………. In partial fulfilment Of the requirements for the completion of the course, By Name City, State Date Introduction In the modern world of business and management, people are constantly faced with crucial decisions that they have to make on a regular basis. Some of these decisions are guided by ethics and professional codes of conduct. Decision making can be a tough undertaking especially where ethical dilemmas are involved. In such cases, either option has its own merits and demerits. The decision maker has to choose the decisions with less detriments or those that they feel are in accordance with their decision making criteria. Ethical dilemmas are a constant challenge to policy and decision makers in organisations. Making appropriate ethical decisions can be a determinant whether leadership and management are regarded as successful (Stead, Worrel and Stead 2000, 234). When making ethical decisions, there are various models that have been developed over time to aid in the process. The choice of model is dependent on some factors such as organisational structure, culture, personal beliefs, and professional codes of conduct among other issues. Some of the most common models used include the utilitarian model, the golden rule model, justice model, moral rights model among others. Each of these models has their applicability and different levels of success depending on the context they are applied in and decision support systems put in place to help in the processes. In this essay, an evaluation of the utilitarianism and its applicability in management will be covered in depth. Situations where the model is suitable and the process followed will also be evaluated The moral right and justice models This model advocates for ethical decision making in a manner that upholds and safeguard fundamental rights of the individuals affected by the decision. A decision maker has to consider each decision option and how it will affect individual rights and privileges of stake holders. It is after a critical analysis that the decision maker should choose appropriately. In a free world, individual are entitled to rights and privileges that should be upheld and respected by others some of these fundamental rights include privacy, freedom of speech, right to safety, right to live, right to fair due processes among other. A decision maker in this model should avoid infringing on these rights in the decision making process. In the justice model, the detriments and merits of a decision are spread equally in a fair manner which is impartial and equitable. No one stakeholder affected by the decision has an advantage over the other. It is based on the logic that all people are equal and hence, gains and losses of decision making should also be shared equally. It is a socialistic model which advocates for equality, fairness and impartiality. The model promotes equality regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion or colour. Utilitarian ethical decision making model As mentioned earlier, the personality of an individual will affect their decision making and ethical systems. The considerations in the ethical systems are affected by their social status as well as their personality and their day to day life experiences. Ethical philosophies take a normative approach as opposed a descriptive one. They offer guidance on how people should act, given different situations (Louden 2012, 504). The utilitarian theory states that the results of a decision are measured by its goodness or badness. It puts an emphasis on the end results other than the means used to get there. The utilitarian model follows the teleological or consequential approach to decision makings. The model asserts that the impact of a decision should only be judged according to the consequences that come from it (Bartels and Pizarro 2011, 156). The model operates by maximising utility for all parties affected by the decisions. The effectiveness of decisions is as good as the positivity they manifest in more people. The greater good is defined in terms of maximised well being of all parties affected by a decision. In this context, the greater good is quantitatively measurable to a certain degree. The theory is simple as it applies the measurement in degree of correct or wrong. However, measuring these degrees may be challenging in some situations. Generally the utilitarian decision making follows what is right and what yields the greatest good (Hammond 2000, 4). By what is good and what is right, utilitarian decisions are made according to what brings most pleasure and happiness to the stakeholders affected by the decisions. Other ‘goods’ according to the model include, general welfare, and any other aspect that a utilitarian would consider fit in fulfilment of the well being of stakeholders. One crucial characteristic about the model is that the good and well being in question should be spread among a maximum number of people. If the decision only caters for the well being of a few individuals, then it cannot be considered as a utilitarian model. For instance, a manager may be faced with decision of dismissing an incompetent and abusive employee. The manager realises that it would affect the employee negatively as well as his family. Using the utilitarian model, the optimal decision would depend on the pleasure that many would draw from the decision (Sims 2002, 313). Firing the employee would make the workplace better and leave colleagues happy. Retaining the employee would leave friends and family happy. The utilitarian model would follow the decisions that would leave most people satisfied. The underlying logic behind the utilitarian ethical decision making model is that when the well being of society is maximised as much as possible, there would be lesser conflicts and stability would prevail. The challenge with utilitarian model is that an agreement of what is good and what is not is at times conflicting. Some also argue that some ‘goods’ are better than others while some ‘wrongs’ are worse than others. The contemporary society promotes freedom of expression and opinion. It is because of this fact the utilitarian model has been segmented to suit different situations. In this context, there is the act, rule and preference utilitarianism. Whatever the utilitarian form, it is based on whether results maximise greater good or the consequences of a decision are right or wrongs. The model focuses on increasing the greater good to maximum levels while at the same time reducing harm as much as possible. As mentioned earlier, there are different types of utilitarianism followed in the ethical utilitarian decision making model. The Act Utilitarian model requires decision makers to view all individual decisions regarding the results and nothing else. Choices should be made according to the greater good achieved. This model is has some loopholes that could lead to its exploitation. For instance, the model would support employing child labourers in a developing country to produce goods for thousands of people in foreign markets. This loophole has the potential of encouraging social evils in society (Blackorby, Bossert and Donaldson 2002, 550). To deal with this potential evil from the act utilitarian point of view, the rule utilitarian model applies. The model does not evaluate individual actions, but the utility derived from the rules of the acts. This means that, given some certain rules and regulations that everyone understands and follows, the decision made should maximise the greater goods. This solves the problem associated with child labour in the previous example. If all stakeholders understand and conform to the rules against child labour, the decision would not engage children as labourers. If the greater good were to break these rules, then it would not be regarded as a utilitarian ethical decision. The impact of the rules reduces the general happiness that would have been achieved by those affected by the decision. It, therefore, contradicts the initial and original intentions of the utilitarian model of decision making. Breaking rules in this model reverts back to the simple original act utilitarian model. The greater good in Preference Utilitarianism follows the fulfilment preferences of stakeholders affected by the decisions. It follows the general utilitarian model that the right decisions yield best consequences. In this model, the best decision is one that maximises individual preferences of stakeholders. The problem with preference utilitarianism is that different people have diverse preferences, some of which are unethical and illegal. It works best when the preferences of the people involved are generally acceptable and logical. Negative utilitarian model intends to reduce the level or evil or harms that a decision would cause. This model is much more applicable as harms have more dire consequences the greater well being. It maximises the greater good by reducing harms to the lowest possible levels (Woodard, 2013, 248). The main problem with utilitarian decision making model is deciding on the degree of pleasure or displeasure derived from a decision. Pleasure is intangible and different people view it differently in accordance with their personalities and beliefs. For instance, people may view the harm brought to one individual person to be greater than the good done to a hundred individuals. This is complicated by the fact that there is no agreed way of calculating pleasure and happiness. I some instances, individuals derive pleasure from generally unacceptable principles and vices. There are those that derive pleasure from sadistic negative aspects. In the contemporary world, the view of the minority matter. The utilitarian model does not put this into considerations. The theory does not also put into consideration other crucial aspects that should be considered when making decisions. Issues such as intention, motives and underlying reasons warranting decisions to be made are ignored (Smart and Williams 2003, 77). Conclusion Decision making in management is a role that requires adequate information, human resource skills, timing and planning. The process is so crucial that determines the overall performance. Life is all about decisions, some that are easy and others that are complicated. Researchers have come up with decision making models that follow structural ad systematic models. The utilitarian model has been in use for several centuries in the world. It advocates for decision making that maximises that greater good for the majority stakeholders affected by the decision. The decisions should also reduce pain and harm as much possible. The model has several challenges in that different people express happiness and pleasure in different ways. Decision makers also have a hard time determining option that will bring most pleasure and less harm, given the intangibility and an inability to measure pleasure. This makes the model inapplicable in all situations. However, it is very practical when it is utilised with other decision making systems that are logic and realistic References Bartels, Daniel M, and David A Pizarro. "The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas." Cognition 121, no. 1 (2011): 154-161. Blackorby, Charles, Walter Bossert, and David Donaldson. "Chapter 11 Utilitarianism and the theory of justice." Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare 1 (2002): 543-596. Hammond, Peter J. Consequentialist Decision Theory and Utilitarian Ethics. Stanford: Stanford University, 2000. Louden, B R. "Virtue Ethics." Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition), 2012, Pages, 2012: 503-510. Sims, Ronald R. Managing Organizational Behavior. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. Smart, C J, and Bernard Williams. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2003. Stead, Edward W, Dan L Worrel, and Jean Garner Stead. "An integrative Model for Understanding and Managing Ethical Behaviour in Business Organisations." Journal of Business Ethics 9 (2000): 233-242. WOODARD, CHRISTOPHER. 2013. The common structure of kantianism and act-utilitarianism. Utilitas 25, (2) (06): 246-265, http://0-search.proquest.com.alpha2.latrobe.edu.au/docview/1372052796?accountid=12001 (accessed September 25, 2013). Read More