In Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy, the ethical value of an action is determined by its consequences, specifically in terms of the happiness or pleasure it produces and the pain or suffering it prevents. Bentham posits, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do” (Bentham, Pg.17). This principle of utility insists that actions must be judged by their capacity to increase the overall happiness of the greatest number of people. Bentham introduces a methodical approach to evaluating this through what he termed the “felicific calculus,” a way to weigh the balance of pleasure and pain generated by any given action by considering its intensity, duration, certainty, and other factors. In the context of business ethics, this approach mandates that corporate decisions should not be made solely based on profit or personal interest but should be evaluated on their broader impacts on employees, consumers, communities, and the environment. The aim is to choose actions that promote the greatest happiness and well-being across society, making the utilitarian framework a tool for guiding ethical business practices that consider the welfare of all stakeholders.
In Paul Gomberg’s critique of philanthropy within capitalist frameworks, he suggests that ethical action goes beyond mere rescue or aid to address the systemic causes of poverty and inequality. Gomberg argues, “The fallacy of philanthropy – its analogy of rescue – does not help. It misleads us” (Gomberg, Pg.65). This statement encapsulates his stance that while philanthropic efforts to alleviate immediate suffering are commendable, they fall short of being ethically optimal if they fail to challenge and transform the underlying social and economic structures that perpetuate poverty. For Gomberg, ethical actions are those that confront and seek to change the capitalist relations that lead to widespread hunger and deprivation. In a business context, this perspective implies that companies should not only engage in charitable activities but also critically examine and reform their own practices and the broader economic systems in which they operate. This could involve adopting fair labor practices, sustainable production methods, and actively advocating for economic policies that promote equity and access to resources. Gomberg’s analysis thus pushes for a more radical, systemic approach to ethics in business, where the goal is to create conditions that prevent inequality and poverty from arising in the first place.
Considering Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian framework, let’s apply it to a case study involving a corporation facing a decision about outsourcing labor to countries with lower wages. Bentham’s principle of utility, which suggests that actions are ethical if they tend to promote happiness or pleasure and are unethical if they tend to produce unhappiness or pain, can be directly applied here. In this context, if outsourcing labor results in greater overall happiness by providing jobs in poorer countries and reducing costs for consumers, Bentham might view it as an ethical action. However, this decision must be scrutinized under the lens of the principle of utility to ensure that it does not lead to significant unhappiness, such as job losses in the corporation’s home country or exploitation of workers in the outsourced location. The ethical directive, according to Bentham, would require a detailed analysis of the consequences of outsourcing, aiming to ensure that the action maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people affected by the decision.
Turning to Paul Gomberg’s critique of philanthropy within the context of systemic poverty and hunger, his argument suggests that merely addressing the symptoms of economic disparities (e.g., through charitable donations or temporary relief efforts) without confronting the underlying causes is ethically insufficient. In the case study of corporate outsourcing mentioned earlier, Gomberg would likely advocate for a more transformative approach, scrutinizing the global economic structures that allow for, and perhaps incentivize, such outsourcing decisions. Applying Gomberg’s perspective, the ethical action in the case of outsourcing would not solely focus on the immediate economic benefits or harms. Instead, it would involve a critical evaluation of how such business practices contribute to broader patterns of inequality and whether the company can implement more equitable practices. For instance, could the corporation invest in the communities it outsources to, ensuring fair wages, good working conditions, and sustainable development? Gomberg’s approach pushes for systemic changes to business ethics, aiming to address the root causes of poverty and inequality rather than merely mitigating their symptoms.
After delving into both Bentham’s utilitarianism and Gomberg’s critique of philanthropy, I find myself aligning more closely with Gomberg’s perspective, especially in the context of the outsourcing case study. Bentham’s principle of utility, which seeks the greatest happiness for the greatest number, offers a clear, quantifiable approach to ethics. However, it doesn’t adequately address the root causes of systemic issues like poverty and inequality that are exacerbated by global business practices. Gomberg, on the other hand, challenges us to look beyond immediate relief efforts, which can sometimes be superficial, and to confront the underlying economic structures that perpetuate poverty. His critique resonates with me because it underscores the importance of sustainable, systemic change over temporary fixes. Applying this to the outsourcing scenario, it’s not enough to measure the ethicality of a business decision merely by its immediate outcomes on happiness or suffering. Instead, we should evaluate such decisions based on their long-term impact on global inequality and the systemic forces at play. I find Gomberg’s approach more compelling because it demands a broader, more holistic consideration of ethics in business. It prompts us to question and possibly reform the very systems that create ethical dilemmas in the first place. In the case of outsourcing, this might mean advocating for business models that prioritize equitable treatment and sustainable development for all stakeholders, not just those who stand to benefit in the short term. This perspective encourages a deeper reflection on our responsibilities as ethical agents in a complex, interconnected world.
