Yohanna Utilitarianism: Two Characteristics Of Utilitarianis

Yohannautilitarianismtwo Characteristics Of Utilitarianism Are How Ou

Yohanna: Utilitarianism two characteristics of utilitarianism are how our actions affect human happiness and the benefits of consequences of actions as everyone is affected. Virtue ethics is defined as the view that morality is grounded in the virtuous character traits that people acquire (Fieser, 2015, Sec 1.3). These character traits are derived from natural urges, overindulgence, insensibility and temperance. Deontology is based on treating others because they are valuable and not as a tool to use to our advantage. The other characteristic is appreciating others because they possess special qualities and not because of their instrumental value (Fieser, 2015, Sec 1.3).

Starbucks: The issue that stood out in the Starbucks video was the effects of overproduction of coffee beans, which led to farmers going out of business. In response, Starbucks used a utilitarian approach to find a solution. They aimed to do what was morally right to ensure that the consequences were favorable to everyone. They established a buying program called CAFE Practices, which helped create a sustainable, environmentally and socially responsible way of purchasing coffee. Starbucks ensures that farmers are treated fairly, paid a fair wage, and receive other benefits.

By caring for the people involved in the everyday tasks, this benefits everyone. This exemplifies a characteristic of utilitarianism, which considers the overall happiness and the consequences of actions. Xavier: Two characteristics of utilitarianism are happiness and actions. Utilitarianism influences decision-making by assessing the impact on human happiness. Additionally, actions have ripple effects that influence others beyond oneself. Virtue ethics also emphasizes temperance and courage as key traits, as discussed in relation to Bernie Madoff's greed-driven Ponzi scheme, where lack of temperance was evident (Fieser, 2015). Courage is necessary for difficult decisions but must be balanced to avoid harm.

Deontology, linked to Kant’s categorical imperative, emphasizes moral duties and respecting others as ends, not means. Two characteristics are what is best for everyone and what is best for each individual. The categorical imperative advocates treating all persons as beings with intrinsic value, aligning with a respect for individual dignity (Fieser, 2015). Regarding Starbucks, the video highlights that their collaboration with local governments aimed to ensure fair wages and healthcare for farmers, though details are limited. Personally, I believe Starbucks could improve conditions by providing state-of-the-art facilities, similar to standards in the U.S., and establishing dedicated representatives in each country to oversee ethical practices.

While Starbucks has made efforts aligned with these ethical frameworks, there are possibilities for improvement, especially in ensuring transparency and higher standards of worker conditions worldwide. The ethical considerations inform how companies address social responsibilities—whether focusing on overall happiness (utilitarianism), moral character (virtue ethics), or respecting individual rights (deontology). Analyzing these perspectives helps us understand the varying approaches to ethical dilemmas faced by corporations and the importance of aligning corporate practices with ethical theories for sustainable and responsible business conduct.

Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism traditionally emphasizes the greatest happiness principle, where actions are judged morally right if they promote the maximum happiness for the greatest number. In the context of Starbucks' ethical initiatives, this framework guides their efforts to create sustainable practices that benefit farmers, consumers, and the environment (Mill, 1863/2002). By establishing programs such as CAFE Practices, Starbucks demonstrates an approach that aims to maximize global happiness by ensuring fair treatment of farmers and reducing environmental impacts. This utilitarian perspective prioritizes overall positive outcomes, even if some individual interests are secondary.

In contrast, deontology centers on moral duties and principles that are intrinsically right, regardless of consequences. Kantian ethics asserts that individuals should act according to maxims that can be universally applied and that people must always be treated as ends, not merely as means (Kant, 1785/1993). Applying this to Starbucks’ case suggests that the company has a duty to treat farmers and workers with respect, fairness, and dignity, independent of the resulting happiness or profit. For instance, paying fair wages and providing healthcare are obligations rooted in respecting human dignity, aligning with Kant’s emphasis on moral duty rather than utilitarian calculations (Fieser, 2015).

The different conceptions of the moral good in these theories lead to distinct approaches in addressing ethical issues. Utilitarianism might justify sacrificing certain interests if it results in a net increase in happiness, possibly accommodating practices that are beneficial overall but may overlook individual rights. Conversely, deontology would oppose actions that violate moral duties, such as exploiting workers or neglecting fair treatment, even if such actions could lead to greater overall happiness (Ross, 1930). Thus, while both frameworks may arrive at similar outcomes, their ethical reasoning diverges—utilitarianism focuses on consequences, whereas deontology emphasizes adherence to moral principles.

This divergence influences decision-making processes: a utilitarian might endorse a corporate practice if it yields the greatest good, while a deontologist would assess whether the practice respects moral duties and rights. In Starbucks’ context, utilitarian ethics support initiatives that improve global well-being, such as sustainability and fair wages, often justified by positive outcomes. Deontology, however, insists on respecting inherent human dignity and moral duties, compelling Starbucks to uphold rights and fairness regardless of cost or efficiency (Kant, 1785/1993).

In summary, these differences underscore the foundational priorities of each ethical approach. Utilitarianism seeks the maximization of happiness, which may sometimes justify deviations from strict moral duties if the outcome benefits the majority. In contrast, deontology maintains that moral duties and respect for individuals are paramount, insisting that actions must be inherently right regardless of their beneficial or detrimental consequences. For Starbucks, implementing ethical practices aligned with both perspectives can foster a holistic approach to social responsibility—aiming for positive outcomes while adhering to moral duties rooted in respect and fairness.

References

• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Ed., J. Timmermann & D. O’Neill, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism (J. B. Schneewind, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1863)
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford University Press.