3.6 Utility as a point of reference for ethical behaviour

Utilitarianism is a widespread ethic originating from the Anglo-Saxon world, whose classic representatives include the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873).

Ethics of this type focus on the consequences of actions, which is why they can also be described as consequentialist ethics. The criterion for ethical behaviour is the greatest possible benefit for the greatest possible number of people. The basic idea behind this stems from the anthropological assumption that humans strive to increase their pleasure and avoid suffering. This initially sounds like an approach that seems to follow highly selfish motives.

Example

For the sustainability officer in our example, this could lead to the conclusion that she is covering up for her colleague and maintaining harmony and friendship with him.

But it is not as simple as. Utilitarian ethics attach great importance to the non-partisan nature of the moral standpoint. It is about the equal promotion of the interests of all as a criterion for what is morally right. It is not about the promotion of self-interest. This means: "Action is moral if it has the most beneficial consequences for all those affected, i.e. if the consequences of action are that they result in a maximum of pleasure and a minimum of suffering." The assessment of consequences should be impartial and disregard all special sympathies and loyalties.

Our officer must therefore ignore her personal relationship with her colleague and adopt a neutral standpoint. Her actions should be orientated towards the greatest benefit for all.

Consequentialist ethics is focussed on a goal and is oriented towards the consequences of an action in order to assess whether it is ethically good or bad. In a specific ethical conflict situation, it is therefore necessary to examine which ethically relevant consequences would result from my options for action. The option that offers the greatest benefit is the one that is required. This gives rise to new problems that need to be clarified. For one thing, the consequences include "not only the outcomes that occur later, but also the outcomes of an action that occur simultaneously, as well as the action itself and its circumstances". Furthermore, it is about the predictable outcomes, not the outcomes that actually occur - as the former cannot be predicted exactly.

The normative element of utilitarian ethics is the strict focus on the benefit, i.e. the positive outcomes that are expected in the foreseeable future. From this perspective, our actions must be guided by this alone. But what exactly constitutes this benefit? What is of such great value that it can be set as a goal and benchmark? Consequently, another element is necessary, a theory of value that can answer precisely this question. The aforementioned pleasure or well-being can represent such a value. But this still does not say exactly what it can mean in concrete terms and what constitutes it. These are formal determinants that must be filled with the concrete content of values. The extent of this content (of "pleasure minus suffering") must ultimately be added up. This is in order to determine the total benefit for all that results from the consequences of an ethically relevant action. "An action is considered right if its consequences are optimal." It is obvious that such an optimisation process could also lead to further conflicts. For what if the optimal outcomes can only be achieved through reprehensible actions? What if the colleague of the sustainability officer in our example deliberately broke the rules because, based on his own professional expertise, he knows that his breach will result in significantly less environmental impact than if he had blindly obeyed the rules and regulations?

Exercise

 Task 3.3: Maximising benefits (reflection exercise)

Think about an example from raw material mining in which it might be ethically necessary from a utilitarian point of view to carry out a "bad" action in order to maximise the benefit for everyone involved.

Give reasons for your considerations.

Time to complete approx. 20 min.