Business ethics is an application of ethics to behavior and decision-making in a business setting. The connection between business ethics and decision making ideally arises as decision makers consider business ethics before making decisions. When decision making and ethics go hand-in-hand, decision makers strive to avoid making unethical decisions, even when making the ethical decision may result in a loss of profit. There are many different approaches to ethics, and the specific nature of these actions can vary dramatically based on which approach to ethics the decision-maker takes.

One common approach to business ethics and decision making is utilitarianism, which is based largely in examining the consequences of a decision rather than the ethics of the decision in itself. The goal of utilitarian thought is, in most cases, to bring about the most good for the most people. While the end result of decision making based on utilitarian principles is often good, this ethical system can be used to justify unethical practices. Lying or corporate espionage, for instance, could be considered justifiable business decisions if the end result is favorable for most people.

The home of utilitarianism is usually taken to be Britain: Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, J S Mill. For Bentham, you should promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people: the Greatest Happiness Principle. For him, any good was as good as any other, and just as worthy of promotion: "pushpin (a form of table skittles) is as good as poetry."

John Stuart Mill in his book "Utilitarianism" refined this. He thought some goods were better than others: intellectual pursuits ranking highest. So, I suppose, poetry was better than pushpin for him. Heirarchies of goods are hard to defend, but he did a pretty good job of it. Bright man.

Utilitarianism became an actual policy here during and just after world war 2. Utility goods, cheap and easy to make, were the order of the day. The British Welfare State was built on utilitarian principles. Much of what's left of it still is, including the National Health Service. Constant talk of giving taxpayers "value for money" is applied utilitarianism which we hear everyday.

The only problem for me was in reading J S Mill. As an undergraduate I found it the very best cure for sleeplessness!

Christopher NOCK

utilitarianism is good to maximum possible and ethical behaviour means outcomes of values for distinguishing between right and wrong at societal level. so if ethical behaviour will be shown , the outcome be same as utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is in principle compatible with Kantian ethics. So-called “rule utilitarians” claim that following a certain set of moral rules would, in the long run, maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. In fact, a utilitarian could even argue that one ought not to use a utilitarian calculus for deliberating one’s actions because such deliberation may take too long or may be incomplete because all the relevant information is not available, or may just be too complex, so best to go with the workaday moral rules of thumb instead; information has a moral cost. Rule-based (deontological or Kantian) approaches to ethical decision-making are also subject to abuse. Rules and the applications thereof are subject to interpretation, and rules may have implicit ceteris paribus conditions. There’s a lot of wiggle room for clever unscrupulous people to get the outcomes they want under any system.

The issue at hand lies in utilitarianism's' constitution which equates what is best or has the most utility for the majority  as the most ethical decision or action to take. The problem with this formulation for making ethical choices was already recognised in the writings of Plato's' "Republic" with his conception of direct democracy. He convincingly argued that  when societies choices are based purely on the perspective of the majority, it will lead to mob rule which usually comes at the expense of the rights of minorities. What is more is the very real reality that often initially what is ethically correct is not usually the opinion of the masses, but a small minority or even individual person who eventually convinces the rest of their community to agree with them. In addition to this, when one looks for example at the rhetoric normally used by 'Realpolitik', mob rule is very open to the manipulation of charismatic characters who regularly use this line of reasoning as a way to justify actions normally considered morally deplorable. Moreover, from a psychological self-critical perspective, though utilitarianism is suppose to help with making ethical choices it leaves no trace as to how responsibility for decision based on it is supposed to be assigned. Specifically, it allows for the what is called 'the problem of many hands' which, simply stated describes the way in which people take less personal responsibility for an action or decision the more people you involve in said actions or decision.  As such, as a system of ethics it cannot stand on its own. 

Now some proponents of Utilitarianism may at this point wish to revert to 'Rule Utilitarianism' as a way to address some of these problems, because it is believed one could set guidelines that would mitigate or remove the drawbacks of 'Simple Utilitarianism'. Conversely, at least to my mind, instead of resolving the problems of 'Simple Utilitarianism' it actually highlights its weaknesses since there is always the problem of the 'exception to the rule', the idea that one could make a rule that states that we should follow 'Rule Utilitarianism' unless when following said rule(s) does not bring the greats utility for the majority of individuals. Consequently, in such cases 'Rule Utilitarianism' does not only refute itself, it can refute itself to such an extent that it makes allowance for unethical actions and decisions. 

Considering all of this the question that comes to my mind is: Is there a place for Utilitarianism in ethics as it, itself can be a threat to ethics? What problamatizes this even more is the fact that it is the only form of ethics which is clearly quantitative. Subsequently, if we cannot find a space for Utilitarianism within our modern constructs of ethics people may see the whole ethical project as pointless. Where then should we place Utilitarianism within our conceptions of ethics? 

After some consideration it may be argued that as a form of ethical decision making Utilitarianism can only be used in the most extreme of circumstances. Even here we can only make allowance for 'Rule Utilitarianism' and not 'Simple Utilitarianism' based on two principles: 

In both the above points the most important factor that needs consideration and could help address some of the problems with 'Rule Utilitarianism' is context. More specifically: What type of utilitarian context would be perceived by other forms of ethics as being aligned enough with their own conceptions of ethics in such a way that taking the utilitarian route is the only justifiable option available from within their own ethical constructs?  Put differently, what would the context have to be to make it impossible from within ethics of justice-rights- and care to come to a ethical conclusion, leaving only utilitarian ethics as final resort.