Utilizing Utilitarianism
Please review the presentation on ethical decision-making frameworks/formats and chapter 6 of Johnson’s book (Kidder’s ethical checkpoints, Nash’s 12 questions, Lonergan/Baird method & Foursquare Protocol). As you think about the overviews of the various ethical frameworks/formats we have considered in this course, what observations would you make (do not write this part out)? Evaluate each of these frameworks for usefulness/preference in your own life; then choose one that you would subscribe to and explain the reasons (also, why you did not choose another). You do not need to limit yourself to only the ones discussed in class or in your reading. You may bring in any other ethical framework (if you do, please frame it around Foucault’s categories so that it would be easy to compare and contrast with other frameworks). (Mays, 2018, para. 1)
When reviewing the ethical frameworks described by Johnson, I quite honestly did not find any of them useful in my personal life. I found the frameworks presented as too general to relate to in my personal life. To me, the frameworks seems to teach you how to gather information about ethical issues rather than solve them which is why I’d have difficulty in applying them.
Where I think these frameworks would be more useful would be for gathering information about an ethical issue and then prescribing a personal philosophy to solve the problem. Solving ethical problems using a philosophy can be compared to solving a mathematical problem where a questions are solved by applying a mathematical method, theory, or structure.
The philosophy I find most useful for solving ethical issues is utilitarianism, the idea of taking the course of action that does the most good for the most amount of people. Johnson (2018, pp. 270-272) summarizes the framework of utilitarianism as:
- identifying the action or moral issue under consideration and identifying all the parties that might be affected by the decision (e.g., minority groups, organizations, or the community),
- determining both the good and the bad consequences of those being affected,
- adding up the good and the bad consequences for those involved with consideration to the size of each party
- acting on the outcome that will do the most good to the most amount of people.
I like this philosophy because I generally believe that acting on the outcome which benefits the most amount of people is generally the right thing to do.
Johnson (2018, pp. 272-274) also describes drawbacks of utilitarianism such as the difficulty in anticipating all possible outcomes of our decisions, the possibility of unforeseen variables, or severely disadvantaging certain groups at the expense of others. These considerations will always carry weight primarily because of our limited ability to predict the future. However, we can also mitigate some of these risks by having visionaries on our teams that can statistically analyze the probabilities of certain outcomes occurring, such as economists for example who specialize in describing outcomes of our decisions.
One of the scenarios that Johnson (2018, p. 274) describes when explaining these cautions is the case of the FBI asking Apple to unlock their phones in order to find terrorists, reasoning that the threat of national security outweigh the privacy of its citizens. According to utilitarian principles however, Apple did the right thing in refusing the government because the privacy of citizens around the world would be jeopardized over the perceived threats these terrorists would have on the American people.
Another example Johnson (2018, p. 273) uses to counter utilitarianism is in the events of WWII were Japanese-Americans were revoked of their rights for suspicion of Japanese nationalists threatening the country. The American government based this decision on the utilitarian principles of sacrificing the rights of the few for the safety of many. While this was definitely an adverse moment in American history, the problems with these actions weren’t rooted in the flaws of utilitarianism, but rather in the assumptions made about Japanese-Americans when gathering information. The government’s actions were based on stereotype, racism, and assumptions rather than fact which is why they believed it to be morally feasible to displace, deport, or imprison Japanese-Americans during the war.
Part of why I like this philosophy or framework is that it guides me in making consistent ethical choices knowing that I benefitted the most amount of people from my choices. Consistency is important in my work because respect, both from my clients and colleagues, is heavily predicated on a leader’s consistency in decision-making due to the implications their decisions may have on people’s livelihood. Utilitarianism allows for a certain objectivity when making decisions, thus producing consistency through objectivity. Teams can also come to better conclusions when making decisions affecting the vulnerable because utilitarianism’s objectivity can help override the group’s competing personal values, philosophies, or biases.
References
Johnson, C. E. (2018). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow [E-Book]. Los Angeles: Sage.
Mays, A. (2015). 504 Intro to ethical frameworks-w6-2015 [PDF]. Retrieved from https://learn.twu.ca/pluginfile.php/155565/mod_resource/content/1/504%20Intro%20to%20Ethical%20Frameworks-w6-2015.pdf