Utilitarianism as an ethical theory has its specific interpretation of the ends of ethics and provides relevant guidelines for decision-making, for example, in business ethics. Utility as the main aim of utilitarianism is also the sole criterion of right action. In accordance with utilitarianism, maximising happiness morally justifies any activity. The estimation of possible consequences of an action should lead to the decision which is good for the biggest amount of people. Utilitarianism includes two conceptions (act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism) with different methods of happiness maximizing. Thus, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are similar in general utilitarian purpose, but they interpret the ends of ethics differently and have different shortcomings which will be shown on business ethics examples https://manyessays.com

Act utilitarianism is one of utilitarianism theories, which is focused on the consequences of a concrete action. The strategy of act utilitarianism considers the consequences of each action and the subsequent decision-making relevant to the fundamental utility principle. In practice, it means that decision-maker should make a list of possible acts and then take into account every person who will be affected by consequences of these acts, compare them and, finally, take the decision which will maximize utility. Last step is based on the result of the greatest general proportion of benefit to harm. Snoeyenbos and Humber admitted the strong side of act utilitarianism that is “in calculating benefits and harms, the act utilitarians consider themselves equally with others, no less but no more”. For example, someone is looking for a business partner to expand his/her own company, and there are three possible companies with which participating contract could be signed. In such a way, the act utilitarianism principle is an appropriate conception that can help to choose the company because it proposes to compare possible benefits and harms of every decision and act in a way that best correlates them. In spite of act utilitarianism advantages, there are some difficulties with this conception - the highlighting of an action consequences as the only criterion of morality that makes act utilitarianism relativistic while its moral fundamentals seem to be too vague. Therefore, in contrast to the first example when the act utilitarianism principle works good, there is a need to give another example when such a principle faces some difficulties. For example, in accordance with act utilitarianism, it is possible to find advantages in using illegal labor: one may decide that there are more benefits for illegal workers than for a company. In this way, act utilitarianism appears as a conception that proposes the acting strategy in accordance with the principle of the greatest happiness.

The conception of rule utilitarianism is a revised version of act utilitarianism regarding the possibility of taking an immoral decision in accordance with the second conception. Rule utilitarianism is another interpretation of utilitarianism theory which is based on the priority of general rules in decision-making process instead of taking decision for each action. Blackburn emphasizes that according to John Stuart Mill thought, everyone desires happiness; thus “everyone in general is concerned for everyone’s pleasure, or for the general happiness”. Based on the perspective of rule utilitarianism, happiness is gained through the acceptance of general or moral rules and acting in accordance with them. The usefulness of the rule utilitarianism principle is obvious: for example, there is a lot of good for business ethics rules which, if followed by everyone, have only benefits as a rule of non-cheating one person by another. Abiding by such a rule would be better for everyone as it will maximize general utility and allow people not to count benefits and harms and possible immorality as in a case of the act utilitarianism principle. Thus, rule utilitarianism is based on the priority of general or moral rules that leads to simplicity and clear understanding in decision-making and acting. To a certain extent, rule utilitarianism takes into account and overcomes weak sides of the act utilitarianism principle. However, the example of using illegal labor is a good illustration of contradiction in this principle. For instance, in some states, it is forbidden to use children labor, but not in every state this question is regulated. If someone’s company decides to work with the factory in another state where children labor exists and where it does not break a law, does it mean that the company is breaking the rule? Such a situation reveals a weak side of this conception, which shows the impossibility of existing a sole rule for everyone and each certain situation. Also, question who should set a rule and why everyone should be led by it every time is quite hard to answer. Thus, they are depended on the interpretation of each person’s view on the best to following rule.

In conclusion, utility is the basic aim for both kinds of utilitarianism as act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism propose different views on the achieving of general happiness. First one proposes to take into account individual possibility to make a decision by evaluating the value of all consequences and choosing the activity relevant to the utility principle. The rule utilitarianism conception influenced by act utilitarianism emphasizes the opportunity to apply general happiness principle. Taking into account only the result makes this theory relativistic and in some cases immoral although utilitarianism has its strong sides as guidelines for decision-making.