why or why not?
2007-03-11 18:41:25 · 4 answers · asked by kissy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes... although I do not believe or agree in utilitarianism.
In the case you mentioned, a corporation that has too much overhead = spending more than they revenue (income), could argue that he needed to downsize or go out of business.
In this case, a few would be hurt by losing their jobs but a the majority would not be affected. That is utilitarian - greatest good for the greatest number.
The key to this argument is that there has to be a larger amount of ppl that benefit a good over the number of ppl that are harmed; therefore, the reason and circumstances for the downsize is crucial to the utilitarian claim.
For example, if a corporation downsizes just to increase the pay of its CEO from 20 million to 50 million then that clearly is not utilitarian.... only one person gains with many ppl experiencing a loss.
2007-03-15 15:47:53 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm not really sure... if we're looking for the greatest good for the greatest number, it would be best to employ everyone in the highest paying job they can get... downsizing seems to do the opposite... but it might make the company more efficient and the company has more money to better serve its customers. But I feel like it would be worse because there's so much bad for the fired employees and their families and that would probably hurt the company because those employees would badmouth the company and people might quit using the company's service if they're angry that the company is firing people. I think ultimately it would bring more bad than good, so a utilitarian approach would reject downsizing.
2007-03-12 03:42:00 · answer #2 · answered by kmnmiamisax 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In general, almost anything can be supported on utilitarian grounds as long as it creates the most utility.
If you use liberal economic theory, downsizing can be seen as a symptom of economic realignment -- a company is not doing as well as it used to, so it is releasing workers who will go work for more profitable companies. By sending workers to more profitable companies, the economy is better in the long run, and everyone is happier.
But you would really have to go on a case-by-case basis.
2007-03-12 02:01:06 · answer #3 · answered by Alex 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Utilitarian ethics says that something is acceptable if helps to achieve a valid goal (has utility).
Downsizing preserves company profits, and helps ensure the company stays in business. Also, what is the utility in keeping someone if the job they are doing is irrelevant or redundant?
2007-03-12 01:45:51 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋