Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-5pczc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T04:56:08.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Utilitarianism Be Distributive? Maximization and Distribution as Criteria in Managerial Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Robert Audi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Utilitarianism is commonly defined in very different ways, sometimes in a single text. There is wide agreement that it mandates maximizing some kind of good, but many formulations also require a pattern of distribution. The most common of these take utilitarianism to characterize right acts as those that achieve “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This paper shows important ambiguities in this formulation and contrasts it (on any plausible interpretation of it) with the kinds of utilitarian views actually defended by major proponents of utilitarianism. The aim is not to defend any of these views but to formulate them in a way that facilitates using them—or, more likely, some revised version suggested by the paper—in guiding decisions in business. The analysis provided here should also facilitate appraisal of utilitarianism, contribute to clarity in discussions of business ethics, and suggest a range of ethical standards that merit consideration for certain kinds of decision. If the results of the analysis are correct, a distributive reading of utilitarianism is at best misleading as a representation of its central thrust; it should not be described as the view that ethics calls for achieving “the greatest good for the greatest number”; and, understood as its major proponents take it, utilitarianism differs more from Kantian ethics than distributive readings imply and is more difficult to defend than it appears to be when viewed as intrinsically distributive.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 593 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © Business Ethics Quarterly 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle. 2002. Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Crisp, R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Audi, R. 2004. The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Audi, R. Forthcoming. “The Place of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Business and the Professions.” Business and Professional Ethics Journal. Google Scholar
Bayles, M. D. 1968. Contemporary Utilitarianism. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L., and Bowie, N. E. 2001. Ethical Theory and Business, 6th ed. Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1843. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. John Bowring. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1961. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. In Dewey, Gramlich, and Loftsgordon 1961: 163–78.Google Scholar
Brandt, R. B. 1979. A Theory of the Good and the Right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, D. G. 1973. “What is Mill's Principle of Utility?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 3: 1–12. Reprinted in Lyons 1997: 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, J. H. 2005. “Happiness and Utility: Jeremy Bentham's Equation.” Utilitas 17(1): 46–61.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 2001. “Appreciating, Understanding and Applying Universal Moral Principles.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 18: 578–94.Google Scholar
DesJardins, J. 2005. An Introduction to Business Ethics, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dewey, R. E., Gramlich, F. W., and Loftsgordon, D., eds. 1961. Problems of Ethics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., Werhane, P., and Cordig, M., eds. 2002. Ethical Issues in Business, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dunfee, T. W. 2006. “Do Firms with Unique Competences for Rescuing Victims of Human Catastrophes Have Special Obligations? Corporate Responsibility and the case of AIDS Victims in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Business Ethics Quarterly 11(2): 185–210.Google Scholar
Dunfee, T. W., Gibson, F. F., Whitman, D., Cohen, D. B., and Brennan, B. A. 1997. Modern Business Law: The Regulatory Environment, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Frankena, W. K. 1973. Ethics, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Frederick, R. E., ed. 1999. A Companion to Business Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibbs, B. 1986. “Higher and Lower Pleasures.” Philosophy 61: 31–59.Google Scholar
Glover, J. 1990. Utilitarianism and Its Critics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hollins, T. H. B. 1964. Aims in Education: The Philosophic Approach. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, B. 2000. Ideal Code, Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, F. 1990. The Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue. In Schneewind 1990: 505–23.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1948. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Paton, H. J. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Layard, R. 2005. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. 1997. Mill's Utilitarianism: Critical Essays. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1964. “Against Utilitarianism.” In Hollins 1964: 1–23.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1977. “Utilitarianism and the Presuppositions of Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Essay on the Relevance of Moral Philosophy to the Theory of Bureauracy.” In Sayre 1977: 216–32.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1984. After Virtue, 2nd ed. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1979. Utilitarianism, ed. George, Sher. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Miller, H. B., and Williams, W. H. 1982. The Limits of Utilitarianism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1903. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, A. N. 1968. Utility Theory: A Book of Readings. New York. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. 2006. “Interests, Universal and Particular: Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarian Theory of Value.” Utilitas 18(2): 109–33.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, D. 1980. Utilitarianism and Co-Operation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1966. Distributive Justice. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sayre, Kenneth, ed. 1977. Values in the Electric Power Industry. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Schneewind, J. B., ed. 1990. Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant, vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scruton, R. 2006. “Thoroughly Modern Mill.” Wall Street Journal (May 16): opinion page.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1990. “Partial Utility.” In Glover 1990: 78–83.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2004. “Elements of a Theory of Rights.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 32: 315—56.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1886. Outlines of the History of Ethics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C., and Williams, B. 1973. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snoeyenbos, M., and Humber, J. 1999. “Utilitarianism and Business Ethics.” In Frederick 1999: 17–29.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. 2003. Virtue Ethics: A Pluralist View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, H. 2004. An Introduction to Mill's Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar