The Moral Plausibility of Utilitarianism in Business through the Lens of Christian Ethics

Abstract

Individuals and societies have long made decisions through the use of utilitarianism - an ethical theory that determines the morality of an action based on its consequence of producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An evaluation of the plausibility of this theory as a moral standard in doing business, though, revealed that it is inconsistent with the higher moral order based on biblical principles. While utilitarianism holds that the maximization of pleasure or happiness, or the minimization of pain or unhappiness among the affected people results to the greatest good, the Bible qualifies that true happiness is in God alone and states that suffering will end only upon humanitys full redemption. Nevertheless, God can use the same suffering to realize Gods desirable purposes. Likewise, the tendency of utilitarian practice to sacrifice the rights and welfare, or even lives, of the minority for the happiness of the majority does not reflect Gods character and violates the inherent dignity of each person as bearing the likeness and image of the Creator. With these arguments, the author recommends that people and organizations use other ethical approaches such as Christian ethics in place of, or in combination with, utilitarianism.

Headnote

Abstract

Individuals and societies have long made decisions through the use of utilitarianism - an ethical theory that determines the morality of an action based on its consequence of producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An evaluation of the plausibility of this theory as a moral standard in doing business, though, revealed that it is inconsistent with the higher moral order based on biblical principles. While utilitarianism holds that the maximization of pleasure or happiness, or the minimization of pain or unhappiness among the affected people results to the greatest good, the Bible qualifies that true happiness is in God alone and states that suffering will end only upon humanitys full redemption. Nevertheless, God can use the same suffering to realize Gods desirable purposes. Likewise, the tendency of utilitarian practice to sacrifice the rights and welfare, or even lives, of the minority for the happiness of the majority does not reflect Gods character and violates the inherent dignity of each person as bearing the likeness and image of the Creator. With these arguments, the author recommends that people and organizations use other ethical approaches such as Christian ethics in place of, or in combination with, utilitarianism.

Keywords

utilitarianism, greatest good, greatest number, ethics

Introduction

Since its introduction by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), utilitarianism has served as one of the most influential schools of moral thinking in business, economics, politics, government, and other institutions. Bentham (1789) developed utilitarianism as an ethical philosophy that anchors morality on an actions potential to generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people. He defined the greatest good as the maximization of pleasure or happiness, or the minimization of pain or unhappiness, or both. Based on his hedonic calculus, any action that provides the greatest net pleasure, or the difference between pleasure and pain, is the most moral action. He proposed the measurement of pleasure and pain using seven variables, namely (1) intensity, the magnitude of pleasure or pain; (2) duration, the length of time that the pleasure or pain is expected to last; (3) certainty, the likelihood that the pleasure or pain will last; (4) propinquity, the proximity in time when the pleasure or pain is to be experienced; (5) fecundity, the likelihood that pleasure will produce more pleasure and pain will produce more pain; (6) purity, the quality of pleasure to be free from pain, and of pain to be free from pleasure; and (7) extent, the number of people who will feel the pleasure or the pain.

Mill (1863) built upon the works of Bentham to further develop the utilitarian theory. His emphasis was on making utilitarian decisions for society as a whole, rather than for individuals only. He believed that not all pleasures are the same; those pertaining to the mind were higher-order pleasures, while those pertaining to the body were lower-level pleasures. He also advocated that people respect the personal freedom and individual rights of other people seeking their own pleasures as long as these individuals do not harm others. While business and economic organizations, through the years, have applied utilitarianism extensively in their operations, this philosophy's core principle, "greatest good for the greatest number," appeared to be problematic from the Christian perspective. The rest of this article discusses why this was so.

Review of Related Literature

Studies on Utilitarianism

There is a division in secular literature insofar as its evaluation of utilitarianism as an effective moral standard is concerned. Marseille and Kahn (2019) found utilitarianism to be a reliable ethical framework for allocating scarce resources to maximize health-related benefits in an African country with a high prevalence of HIV. Using a utilitarian-based cost-benefit analysis, they showed that governmental spending targeted at distributing more male rather than female condoms could help reduce HIV infections and thus save more lives. In another study, Veenhoven (2010), after conducting empirical research on life satisfaction, concluded that utilitarianism as a philosophy that promotes happiness is practically feasible and morally sound. He analyzed data from the World Database of Happiness and concluded that happiness - the overall enjoyment of one's life - is both measurable and increasable, thus giving institutions no valid reason to denounce happiness as insignificant. He concluded that happiness can be a good answer if people were to search for a desirable end-value.

In conducting an extensive review of related literature on utilitarianism, Parijat (2015) found both merits and drawbacks in the philosophy. He described utilitarianism as "simple, straightforward, practical, and based on equality and common sense" (p. 34). However, he also found that this ethical standard neglects other morally desirable aspirations, is difficult to implement, does not differentiate between the pleasures that individuals derive from a common outcome, presents difficulties in quantifying levels of pleasures and pain, and ignores other noble virtues such as devotion and sacrifice. In another paper, Mukerji (2013) criticized utilitarianism for its lack of compatibility with intuitive moral judgments, consistency, completeness, and conceptual clarity. He claimed that many of the arguments supporting the theory were unsound or questionable, thus he proposed the rejection of classic utilitarianism as a general theory of morality. Weiss (2019), in contrast, found issues against the utilitarian concept of the greatest good - the definition of good, the decider of what is good and what is not, the criteria of what makes the consequence of a decision better than another, and the group whose interests are prioritized over others in decision-making. To these concerns, Narens and Skyrms (2020) added the question of scope - how far into the future one has to look at in identifying the people a particular action affects.

Zeroing in on the measurement of utility - of the comparison between happiness and unhappiness - DeGeorge (2011) asserted that some non-economic goods like life, freedom, equality, health, beauty, grace, and faith have values that are hard to measure, making utility comparisons and trading difficult. In addition, Dietz (2019) asserted that even when pleasure or happiness becomes precisely measurable, there is the possibility of the paradox of hedonism coming into play, with the pursuit of happiness for its own sake potentially becoming self-defeating due to human incompetence in predicting what will make them happy, or to the non-availability of special goods that provide the greatest pleasures.

On the incompatibility of utilitarianism with issues of justice and human rights, Gesang (2005) found problematic the utilitarian practice of judging the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences, and not on the action itself. Accordingly, justice depends not on consequences, but on giving each person what is due him or her, insisting that decision-makers should not sacrifice the rights of the minority for the happiness of the majority.

Utilitarianism in Action

Utilitarianism in Business and Economics

Locke et al. (2021), Kahane et al. (2015), Sheskin and Baumard (2016), Cleveland (2000), Dale (2020), and Mack (2004) all reported the failure of the utilitarian standard and other secular ethical theories to serve as effective guides to ethical business behavior. Unethical practices, such as lying about the true financial condition of companies, false advertising, marketing of defective products, unfair competition, bribery, impingement on intellectual property rights, malversation or misuse of funds and other company resources, theft, tax evasion, discrimination, harassment, nepotism, favoritism, poor working conditions, abuse of authority, violations on data privacy, violations of labor standards, violations of consumer rights, and destruction of the environment continue to prevail in society. In the United States, Ivcevic et al. (2020), in an article they published in the Harvard Business Review, reported that, based on a national survey of more than 14,500 employees across industries, 23 percent felt a certain amount of pressure in their workplaces to do things they knew were wrong. The study reported that respondents witnessed, in varying proportions, several ethical failures in their respective places of work, including rule violations (29 percent), lying (27 percent), unhealthy work environment (27 percent), sacrificing safety (9 percent), discrimination (3 percent), stealing (3 percent), and bullying (2 percent).

On a grander scale, Gordon (2022) reported that in 4,762 surveys involving board members, senior managers, and employees in a sample of the largest companies and organizations in 54 countries and territories worldwide:

(1)41 percent of respondents (and 54% of surveyed board members) said that the COVID-19 pandemic has made it more difficult to carry out business with integrity.

(2) 18 percent of all surveyed board members said that they are prepared to mislead external parties such as auditors or regulators to improve their own career progression or remuneration.

(3) Only 28 percent of employees are confident that third parties abide by relevant laws and regulations.

(4) Only 33 percent of respondents believe behaving with ethical standards is an important characteristic of integrity; and

(5) 42 percent of surveyed board members agreed that unethical behavior in senior or high performers is tolerated in their organization.

Modern business is replete with cases that showed the application of utilitarianism in some important decisions that companies and institutions made in the past. I have summarized here two cases to illustrate how the use of the utilitarian ethic has impacted the lives of people in two different situations: (1) in a company's decision to produce and market a vehicle despite an impending government regulation that puts its safety capability into serious question; and (2) in hospitals' decisions regarding the assignment of ventilators at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Shaw and Barry (2015) reported on the first case, the Ford Pinto. Accordingly, in 1968, the Ford Company decided to manufacture the Ford Pinto vehicle as a strategic response to foreign-made cars that other countries then were aggressively exporting to the United States. Pressed with time to compete with these foreign brands, the company's production department resolved to shorten the product development cycle time from the usual three and a half years to two years. Thus, the company developed prototypes in record time. Coincidentally, it was by then that news broke about the plan of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe, by 1972, a new safety standard requiring that all new vehicles be able to withstand a rear-end collision impact of 20 miles per hour without fuel loss. Anticipating the implementation of this new standard, Ford crash-tested its Pinto prototypes, only to find out that many of the units failed the test. Many of the prototypes suffered from ruptured gas tanks and leaks, thereby posing fire hazards. At this point, Ford could have redesigned its gas tanks to make them safer; however, it chose not to do so. Rather, the company launched the Ford Pinto vehicle in its original design and left it unchanged for the next six years. It reasoned that based on cost-benefit analysis, it would be more costly than beneficial for the company to introduce the suggested design changes. It estimated that the potential cost of improving the vehicles' gas tanks was $137.5 million for 11 million cars and 1.5 million light trucks. In exchange for this cost, Ford's benefit was expected to be in the form of the $49.5 million savings that the company can enjoy in not paying for an estimated number of 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles that may result from accidents associated with the use of cars with unimproved gas tanks. Between 1971 and 1978, following the launching of the product, the news media reported several fire-related deaths attributed to the use of the vehicle. In addition, victims of rear-end accidents or their representatives filed about 50 lawsuits against the company. The company paid millions of dollars to accident victims for compensatory and punitive damages, and in 1978, the Government ordered the recall of all Ford Pinto units manufactured from 1971 to 1976 for the modification of their defective fuel tanks. Ford used utilitarian calculus in determining what would promote the greatest financial good for its stockholders, but its decision led to the loss of lives, body injuries, and burned or damaged vehicles, not to mention the huge amounts of compensation the company paid to aggrieved parties or their survivors and the negative impact all the mess has created for the firm's reputation.

In the second case, Savulescu, Perrson, and Wilkinson (2020) reported that at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline workers in the healthcare industry faced the very serious challenge of making decisions to allocate scarce hospital resources to critically ill patients who needed them. Notable among these resources were the ventilators, which, to many of those who were severely sick with COVID-19, made the difference between life and death. To aid health workers make objective decisions on who gets a ventilator and who does not, many hospitals used a triage that was based on such criteria as (1) probability of recovery, with those patients having a higher probability of recovery receiving a higher priority over those patients with lower probability; (2) expected length of life after COVID-19, with those predicted to live longer lives after recovering from COVID-19 prioritized over those predicted to live shorter lives; and (3) quality of life after COVID-19, with those patients predicted to have a better post-COVID-19 quality of life given preference over the other patients predicted to live a poorer quality of life, even after recovering from the disease. Obviously, this triage was premised on utilitarian reasoning. It sought to save and prolong the productive lives of the greatest number of people in an emergency situation where resources are scarce; however, it sacrificed the interests of others or even their lives.

Utilitarianism in the Bible

Long before utilitarian ethics found its way into modern business and economics, some Bible characters already had applied it in some key decisions they made. Below, I have summarized three sample stories of this nature: (1) that of a king who thought that protecting his people from invaders and promoting their welfare at all cost was the greatest good, and (2) that of a father who considered saving his heavenly guests from molestation as the greatest good, even when his daughters could face potential harm, and (3) that of the high priest's recommendation before the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus. Their inclusion in the Bible does not, in any way, endorse their decisions. As Paul wrote, "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope" (Romans 15:4).

King Asa's Alliance with the King of Aram. 2 Chronicles 16:1-14 recorded this story. Asa was king of Judah at the time when Israel had Baasha as its king. In the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha invaded Judah and started building a fortress city named Ramah. The fortress, which was near the boundary of Judah and Israel, was intended to prevent the entry or exit of anyone to and from Judah. Assessing that Judah's military power was much weaker, compared with that of Israel, Asa sought the support of another kingdom, Aram, in resisting the Israelites. To win the favor of Aram, Asa took gold and silver from the house of the Lord and presented them as gifts to Ben-Hadad, Aram's king. This gesture resulted in Ben-Hadad taking the side of Judah. Thus, Aram broke relations with Israel and began conquering various Israelite cities. This pressured Baasha to order the stoppage of the building of Ramah. Asa then led his fellow Judeans in plundering the abandoned city, taking stones and timber, and using these to build their own cities In Asa's mind, the utilitarian ethic of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number justified his reliance on another king, instead of on God, stealing treasures from the house of the Lord to offer as gifts to a potential ally, and plundering a foreign city to build his own people's cities. He was wrong, for God was not pleased with what he did (2 Chronicles 16:9).

Lot's Offering of his Daughters to the Mob in Sodom. This story from Genesis 19:1-10 had the destruction of Sodom as the backdrop. Before the city's destruction, two angels came into the place and stayed in the house of their host, Lot. When the men in the city knew about the presence of the two visitors, they surrounded Lot's house and demanded that Lot bring them out, so they can have sexual relations with them, for they were homosexuals. Lot's response was unconscionable; he offered his two virgin daughters to the mob in order to save the two angels. Incidentally, the mob rejected Lot's offer and insisted that Lot hand to them the two angels. The two angels came to the rescue and struck everyone in the mob with blindness. Although Lot's daughters were spared from the tragedy, their father's calculation of what constituted the greatest good for the greatest number in such a situation, even to the point of sacrificing his children's dignity, showed how immoral the application of utilitarian ethics can become.

Caiaphas' Recommendation to Kill Jesus. This story was written in John 11:45-53, with the chief priests and the Pharisees meeting in the Sanhedrin to decide what to do with Jesus. They were deeply troubled because Jesus has become so popular by his teachings and mighty deeds. In fact, immediately preceding the meeting was Jesus' great miracle of raising the dead Lazarus back to life. The Council members feared that this figure's immense popularity might lead to a social upheaval that would catch the attention of the Romans who may then come to destroy both the Jewish temple and nation. It was at that point that Caiaphas, the high priest, said, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed" (John 11:50). Obviously, this is an example of utilitarian argument at its worst - save the majority; never mind if the one dying was totally innocent.

Nevertheless, the gospel writer's additional remarks about the matter must be recognized. In verses 51 and 52, he wrote:

He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.

Thus, while Caiaphas recommended a death motivated by selfish utilitarian ends, God used the chief priest's words to convey a higher spiritual meaning. Jesus' death was not a utilitarian's death but something more, as discussed in the last section of this article.

Christian Ethics

Christian ethics is a moral philosophy that defines what is right and what is wrong based on God's teachings in the Bible and in the life that Jesus Christ modeled. As an ethical framework, it uses three approaches: teleology, deontology, and responsibility. Teleology identifies what the end goal is, and then builds up the morality that decision-makers need to reach that end. Deontology emphasizes the duty to do what is right based on universal moral laws, while the responsibility approach highlights the need to do what is fitting based on a person's sense of accountability (encyclopedia.com). Christian ethics is teleological in the sense that it sets as the end goal of all morality, humanity's union with God. Anything that promotes this end is good while anything that hinders it is bad. Christian ethics is also deontological in that it lays down morality on the duty to obey God's teachings. Good means obedience to these teachings, just as bad means disobedience. Finally, Christian ethics uses the responsibility approach in that it also defines good or bad based on humanity's response to the character of God. Love, as the central character of God, should motivate ethical behavior (Hauweras & Wells, 2018).

Many recent studies in the field of Christian ethics have recommended the use of the Bible as the golden standard of morality in all facets of human life, including business management. This is consistent with Dyck (2014), who reported that religion informs management through written Scriptures and experiential spiritual exercises; Grimes and Bennett (2017), who suggested that leaders place God's commandments in the center of everything they do, even in their business activities; Bretsen (2006), who proposed that owners operate a business as a mission field, with Christian theological and social principles integrated into it; Stuebs and Kraten (2021 ) and Dose (2021), who proposed the application of Solomon's wisdom to doing business; and Lynn and Wallace (2001), who recommended the use of the entire Old Testament as a reliable business guide. Toward this direction, Locke, Shelton, and Smith (2021) offered biblical ethics as a more comprehensive approach to business morality; Vitell (2009) surmised that religiosity can offer a background for the interpretation of business ethics, even as Mele (2015) predicted the growing relevance of religious approaches to business ethics.

Objectives of the Study, Gap Filled, and Significance

This study seeks to evaluate the moral plausibility of utilitarianism through the lens of the Bible, the foundation of Christian ethics. As the observations in the literature review above point out, while many scholars questioned the plausibility of utilitarianism as an ethical theory, most of these critiques, including those from faith-based circles, used the lens of philosophical reasoning in arriving at their conclusions. Moreover, no recent studies examine the validity of utilitarian ethics through direct comparison of its principles with the Christian tenets contained in the Scriptures. This article aims to fill in that gap.

The expectation is that the findings and recommendations of this study will contribute positively to ethical theory and practice by way of evaluating utilitarianism from the standpoint of Bible teachings. The identification of flaws in the utilitarian standard, if any, may motivate utilitarian decision-makers to reexamine their moral lenses and consider other ethical frameworks such as Christian ethics to take the place of, or blend with, the utilitarian philosophy, thereby improving the moral record of business and economics.

Method

The method of inquiry in this article is evaluation. Evaluation is "a form of disciplined and systematic inquiry that is carried out to arrive at an assessment or appraisal of an object, program, practice, activity, or system with the purpose of providing information that will be of use in decision-making" (Kellaghan, 2010, p. 150). In this assessment, the researcher compares the characteristics or actual state of a subject with the norms that a chosen standard prescribes. In this study, the utilitarian theory was the subject, and Christian ethics was the standard.

This article critically assesses the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number by using relevant Bible passages and the complete Bible message. It is valid to use the Bible as the authority in conducting this type of assessment because of two reasons, namely, the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures and the perfection of the word of God, as the following verses from the sacred book support:

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the decrees of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever; the ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. (Psalm 19:7-9)

Findings

Support for the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number is not in biblical teachings. The Bible does not endorse the idea that people and organizations realize the greatest good in a decision when they maximize their pleasure or happiness, minimize their pain or unhappiness, or both, in the utilitarian sense. The utilitarian definitions of happiness and unhappiness are inconsistent with the biblical definitions to which Christian ethics subscribes. By happiness in utilitarianism is meant "intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, p. 10). The philosophy holds that people can measure and compare pleasure and pain through hedonic calculus using such factors as intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent (Bentham, 1789). Christian ethics, in contrast, stands on the belief that people can find true happiness only in their personal relationship with God and in living a life of obedience to his will. It also believes that the root cause of unhappiness is separation from God, which is a consequence of sin. Biblical references that support this view include Mark 8:35-36:

For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?

While Christian ethics looks at happiness with both temporal and eternal perspectives, utilitarianism looks at happiness only from the standpoint of temporary world pleasures. Happiness in utilitarianism is hedonic in character, while happiness in Christian ethics concerns not only the physical dimension but also the spiritual.

In Ecclesiastes 2, the Bible tackled the meaninglessness of hedonism, and hence utilitarianism, and its foundation on shallow ground. Solomon, the wealthiest and wisest of Israel's kings, sought worldly pleasures in different ways. He denied himself nothing that his eyes desired and refused his heart no pleasure, only to find everything meaningless and a chase in the wind (Ecclesiastes 2:10-11). In the end, he realized that everything he pursued was not completely satisfying such that in the last verse of the book of Ecclesiastes, he concluded that only God gives true happiness (Ecclesiastes 2:26). Jeremiah 2:13 conveyed the same message. In this verse, God used symbolic language in saying that people have dug their own cisterns that cannot hold water while forsaking him who is the spring of living water. Another important biblical reference to happiness and unhappiness from the viewpoint of Christian ethics is Psalm 1 :

Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate day and night. They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither. In all that they do, they prosper. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore, the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; for the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

Support for the utilitarian rule that holds that the greatest good in a decision lies in the minimization of pain or unhappiness also is not visible. Genesis 3 taught that suffering and death entered the world because of Adam and Eve's disobedience to the will of God. Disobedience to the will of God is sin, and in Romans 5:12, it was stated that death spread to the human race because of sin. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 declared that believers will be alive in Christ because of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead. Romans 8:18-22, though, stated that the reality of suffering will persist until humanity's redemption is fully realized:

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God, for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Thus, while utilitarianism will always attempt to eliminate pain or suffering, it was clear from the Bible that such an attempt will be unsuccessful in the temporal world order. The Bible, though, stated that God can use suffering to accomplish desirable ends. In Romans 8:28, Paul wrote: "We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose," while James 2:14 taught that when Christians face various trials, they should consider it all joy because the testing of one's faith produces endurance. This was expounded in Romans 5:3-5, adding that endurance produces character, and that character produces hope.

The second part of the utilitarian standard of the greatest good for the greatest number - that of the 'greatest number' - also did not find support in biblical teachings. There was nothing in the Bible that based the morality or immorality of a decision on the number of people who experienced happiness out of it; more so, when the majority sacrifices the rights of the minority, as is often the case in the application of utilitarian ethics. God's love was intended for all. The story of Moses, bargaining that the Lord not destroy the sinful city of Sodom on account of a few righteous people living there, demonstrates this (Gen 18:23-32). Moses started his bargain with the hypothetical case of finding 50 righteous people among the unrighteous. He asked God if God still will destroy the city, in case he finds 50 righteous persons residing there, and the Lord answered that for the sake of these 50 persons, he will spare the whole place. Moses then asked the same question but went down gradually from 50 to 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and finally, 10 righteous people, and for each of these questions, God answered that God will not destroy the city for the sake of the righteous ones, no matter how few in number. In the gospel, Jesus' life and teachings vividly demonstrated this same character of God. For instance, in the parable of the good shepherd, the shepherd who was representing God in the story, left the 99 sheep to find the 1 missing sheep (Matthew 18:12-13).

Other biblical passages underscored God's care for the poor and the marginalized sectors of society, and not just for the members of the mainstream population. Proverbs 22:22-23 taught that people should "not exploit the poor because they are poor nor crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life" (Proverbs 22:22-23), while Isaiah 1:17b gave instructions to "rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, and plead for the widow."

Several passages in the Bible reject partiality and discrimination. Among these is an admonition not to take the side of the majority if these were wrong, for doing so perverts justice (Exodus 23:2). Another passage is a reminder to be just to the poor and the great alike, that is, "You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice, you shall judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15).

Finally, the Biblical teaching that is most fundamental in refuting the greatest number tenet of utilitarianism is the concept of the imago Dei. In Genesis 1:27, it was written, "So, God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Thus, with each person carrying the image of the Creator, there is no valid reason to treat anyone as a mere statistic in the utilitarian calculus of the greatest good for the greatest number, or worst, sacrifice his welfare or very life for the pleasure of others.

Discussion, Conclusion, and Direction for Future Research

The utilitarian philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number is not morally plausible in in the light of Scriptural passages, biblical stories, and the entirety of the biblical message. Basing the greatest good on the maximization of happiness and the minimization of unhappiness is flawed because utilitarian theory defined these two concepts with a hedonic perspective. The Bible teaches that pleasure is fleeting and that humans can find true happiness in God alone. In addition, pain or suffering is a reality that entered the human experience because of sin and is here to stay until the human race experiences the fullness of redemption in the afterlife. Nevertheless, God can use human suffering to attain desirable ends.

The utilitarian concept of gauging the morality of an act on the "greatest number" of people who will experience pleasure out of it runs in conflict with Biblical teachings. God's character modeled the importance of every person in the eyes of God. God will spare an entire population from destruction for the sake of the righteous, no matter how few these people may be. God will leave many people who are well in order to find and save even just one person who is unwell, and God takes care not only of the mainstream members of society but also of the marginalized ones. With every man and woman bearing the image of the Creator, it is unconscionable to sacrifice the life and welfare of anyone just to make the lives of others more pleasurable.

While others may argue that Jesus Christ himself used the utilitarian ethic in offering his life on the cross for the sake of humanity, this argument is baseless if we consider the motive of his sacrifice and the consequences that it produced. Jesus offered his life willingly and out of love, not out of compulsion and selfish ends. And in dying on the cross, the effect on humanity is not any worldly pleasure that a utilitarian may offer but eternal life in heaven that starts with a life of communion with God, even while on earth. Jesus, thus, was never a utilitarian but the perfect model and standard of what Christian ethics stands for.

With its findings, this study concludes that utilitarianism is inconsistent with the entire framework of Christian ethics - teleologically, deontologically, and responsibility-wise. It supports Mukerjy's (2013) and Weiss' (2019) conjecture of utilitarianism being incompatible with moral judgments and lacking conceptual clarity. It also lends credence to the findings of Kahane et al. (2015), Sheskin and Baumard (2016), Cleveland (2000), Dale (2020), and Mack (2004) on the failure of the utilitarian standard and other secular ethical theories to serve as effective guides to moral behavior. Moreover, it is in agreement with Gesang (2005) and Vivekanda (2003) on their observations on utilitarianism's incompatibility with justice and rights, and with Vitell's (2009) recommendation to use religiosity as background in the interpretation of business ethics.

Given the foregoing, this article's recommendation is that business people and economists who aspire to align their decisions with biblical standards consider a more morally plausible approach to ethical decision-making. The replacement or moderation of utilitarian ethics with Christian ethics is a positive move along this direction. Doing so will help prevent the recurrence of moral blunders similar to the Ford Pinto case and the healthcare industry's triage case at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The search for concrete ways to temper utilitarianism with Christian ethics can be an exciting arena for future research.

Sidebar

About the Author

Dr. Jaime V. Cortez ([email protected]) is a member of the Business Management Faculty at the University of the Philippines Diliman Extension Program (UPDEPP), Clark Freeport Zone, Pampanga, Philippines. He holds a of Bachelor of Science in Management and Industrial Engineering from Holy Angel University; a Master of Management in Business Management from the University of the Philippines; and a Doctorate in Business Administration from De La Salle University. Prior to teaching at UPDEPP, Dr. Cortez was Associate Professor of Business Administration at the University of Guam in Guam, USA. Dr. Cortez's research interests include the interface of spirituality and business management, business ethics, organizational theory, strategic management, and general management. ORCID 0000-0002-8401-0016.

Discussion Questions

1. Why is the study of ethics important to a decision-maker?

2. Do you find the utilitarian philosophy of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number in congruence with the business and economic aspirations on fairness and justice? Defend your answer.

3. What is your assessment of using the Scriptures as the golden standard of business morality? Do you foresee any issues that may arise if business leaders will use the Bible as their moral guide in making organizational decisions? How do you propose to address these issues?

To Cite this Article

Cortez, J. V. (2023, Fall). The moral plausibility of utilitarianism in business through the lens of Christian ethics. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 15(2), 62-29.

References

References

Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press. https://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML.html

Bretsen, S. (2006). The faithful business as a publicly traded corporation: Testing the outer limits of corporate law. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 11 (3), 42-80. https://cbfa-jbib.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/227/227

Cleveland, P. (2002). The failure of utilitarian ethics in political economy. Journal of Private Enterprise, 18, 16-28. http://journal.apee.org/index.php/999624.pdf

Dale, S. (2020). Utilitarianism in crisis. Voices in Bioethics, 6. https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v6i.6082

DeGeorge, R. (2011). Business ethics (7th ed.). Pearson.

Dietz, A. (2019). Explaining the paradox of hedonism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(3), 497-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2018.1483409

Dose, J. (2012). Proverbs: Ancient wisdom for contemporary organizations. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 15(2), 827. https://cbfa-jbib.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/149

Dyck, B. (2014). God on management: The worlds largest religions, the theological turn, and organization and management theory and practice. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 41, 2362. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20140000041010

Encyclopedia.com. (n.d.). Christian ethics. https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-andmaps/ christian-ethics

Gesang, B. (2005, June). Utilitarianism with a human face. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 39, 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10790-006-8394-4

Gordon, A. (2022, March 7). Tunnel vision or the bigger picture? How a focus on enhanced governance can help reimagine corporate integrity. Global integrity report 2022. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/assurance/assurance-pdfs/ey-global-integrity-report-2022.pdf

Grimes, M., & Bennett, R. (2017). Christ-centered leadership: God-honoring leadership for committed Christians. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 27(1), 24-33. https : //cbfa-j b ib. org/index, php/j bib/artie le/view/457/469

Hauerwas, S., & Wells, S. (eds.) (2018). The Blackwell companion to Christian ethics (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Ivcevic, Z., Menges, J., & Miller, A. (2020, March). How common is unethical behavior in U.S. organizations? Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2020/03/how-common-is-unethical-behavior-in-u-s-organizations

Kahane, G., Evrett, J., Earp, B., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). Utilitarian' judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005

Kellaghan, T. (2010). Evaluation research. International Encyclopedia of Education Research (3rd ed.). https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005

Locke, L., Shelton, T., & Smith, B. (2021). A defense of Biblical ethics in business. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 24(Y), 80-89. https://cbfa-jbib.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/600/601

Lynn, M., & Wallace, D. (2001). Doing business with a Hebrew Bible. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 7(1), 10-40. https://cbfa-jbib.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/345

Mack, P. (2004). Utilitarian ethics in healthcare. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet, and Management, 12(3), 63-72. https://studylib.net/doc/8861459/utilitarian-ethics-in-healthcare-international-journal-Marseille,

E., & Kahn, J. (2019). Utilitarianism and the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in resource allocation for global health. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/sl3010-019-0074-7

Mele, D. (2015). Religious approaches in business ethics: Current situation and future perspectiv es. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, (6), 137-160. https://repository.globethics.net/handle/20.500.12424/316930

Mill, J. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/utilitarianismOlmill/utilitarianismO lmill.pdf

Mukerji, N. (2013). Utilitarianism. In Christoph Lütge (ed.), Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics, 297-313. Springer. https://philarchive.org/rec/MUKU

Narens, L., & Skyrms, B. (2020). The pursuit of happiness: Philosophical and psychological foundations of utility. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198856450.001.0001

New Revised Standard Version Bible (1989). National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Parijat, P. (2015). Utilitarianism as a theory of business ethics: An evaluation. Professional Panorama: An International Journal of Management and Technology,<https://web.archive.org/web/20180410061952id_/http://www.professionalpanorama.in/w p-content/uploads/2015/11/3_Pranav.pdf

Savulescu, J., Perrson, I., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics, 34(6), 620-632. https://doi.org/10.llll/bioe.12771

Shaw, W., & Barry, V. (2015). Moral issues in business (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Sheskin, M. & Baumard, N. (2016). Switching away from utilitarianism: The limited role pf utility calculations in moral judgment. PLOS ONE. https :// doi. org/10.13 71 /j ournal .pone.0160084

Stuebs, M. and Kraten, M. (2021). Solomon's lessons for leading sustainable lives and organizations. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 24(1), 61-71. https://cbfa-jbib.org/index.php/jbib/article/view/597/599

Veenhoven, R. (2010). Greater happiness for a greater number. Is that possible and desirable? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 605-629. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0902-010-9204-z

Yiteli, S. (2009). The role of religiosity in business and consumer ethics: A review of the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 90 (Suppl 2), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10551-010-0382-8

Weiss, J. (2009). Business ethics: Concepts and cases. Cengage.