Jeremy Bentham's Principle Of Utility

710 Words3 Pages

In this paper, I will refute Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utility by showing that it overshadows the importance of the courses of action taken when making decisions. Bentham discusses, in “ Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation”, the principle of utility which says that, “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness” (Bentham, 31). According to the English philosopher’s morality, this principle requires the approbation of actions if and only …show more content…

Although the consequences of Hoyvald’ decision produced overall happiness according to a vague quantitative measurement, his decision wasn’t the best one. The quantitative measurement, also known as the “hedonistic calculus”, is a procedure used by Bentham to calculate the pleasures and pains of a decision’s outcomes to support his theory (Bentham, 32). By following this procedure, we are overshadowing the reasons that caused such pleasures and pains to occur. In Hoyvald’s case, he must have chosen the decision that was ethically right rather than the decision that was the best for his own sake, meaning that it caused more pleasure than pain. And by that we approach the definition of what is ethically right and what is not. When talking about ethics, specifically business ethics, one must refer to certain principles of conduct. A company’s behavior must reflect a social responsibility towards its customers, meaning that in that case, Beech-Nut must have confronted the public about the truth on their juice that was not really composed of apple concentrate as it has been labeled. In that way, the company could have made the right decision for the sake of everybody although the following consequences might not have supported their future as a business. This is simply the decision that the president could have gone