UPI Study › Courses › Business Ethics › Free lessons › Lesson 1.5 Free with a free account
Applying Utilitarian Thinking to Business Situations
Business Ethics · Chapter 1: Foundations of Business Ethics and Moral ReasoningSection 1.5 · lesson 5 of 10515 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Business Ethics.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Business Ethics
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: From Aristotle to Rawls: Philosophical Roots of Business Ethics →← Rights-Based and Natural Law Approaches to EthicsNext lesson: From Aristotle to Rawls: Philosophical Roots of Business Ethics →
In this lesson
Compare consequences for everyone affected, then examine what a financial total leaves out.
- Explain the utility principle and its comparative focus.
- Apply a stakeholder cost-benefit analysis.
- Weigh magnitude, duration, certainty, and scope.
- Recognize useful applications and important limitations.
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,865 words). Read along, or search it.
Foundations of Business Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Utilitarian Thinking in Business
A business decision can benefit one group, while creating serious costs for another. Utilitarian thinking asks which available choice produces the best overall consequences for everyone affected. That question requires comparison, because an option must be judged against realistic alternatives. This lesson explains the utility principle, and develops a stakeholder cost-benefit analysis. You will estimate costs and benefits, keeping the groups and assumptions clearly identified. A plant consolidation example shows why favorable results for several groups can still produce a negative total. The financial comparison then expands through magnitude, duration, certainty, and scope. Those four questions examine differences that a single dollar figure can conceal. A battery recall example applies the questions to bodily risk and uncertain safety estimates. Finally, examine difficult-to-price harms, concentrated losses, and overly optimistic assumptions. Explain trade-offs carefully, rather than treat a favorable number as sufficient justification.
The Utility Principle
Judge the Consequences across Realistic Alternatives
The utility principle evaluates choices through their overall consequences for the people affected. Ask which realistic alternative leaves those people better off, taken together. A useful intention does not settle that question, if the resulting effects are harmful. Following a policy also does not, by itself, establish the best overall consequences. This lesson emphasizes comparing actions; utilitarian traditions also discuss rules and their consequences. Utility concerns well-being, which is broader than the monetary values used in a financial calculation. Employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers, and surrounding communities may experience different effects from the same decision. Include relevant groups, rather than count only the organization’s benefits. Before deciding, compare expected consequences using the available evidence, while acknowledging uncertainty. After implementation, examine actual outcomes and revise assumptions where evidence warrants. Cost-benefit analysis organizes the comparison, estimating each alternative’s benefits and costs across affected groups.
A Repeatable Procedure
Build the Comparison before Selecting an Option
Begin by identifying the decision, and the realistic alternatives that could address it. Do not restrict the comparison to a favored plan and doing nothing, if other options exist. Next, list every stakeholder group affected, including indirect effects outside the organization. Estimate each alternative’s costs to each group, using clearly stated assumptions. Then estimate that alternative’s benefits for those groups, keeping the assumptions consistent. Net benefit means subtracting estimated costs from estimated benefits, on a comparable basis. Use the same time horizon, so recurring and one-time effects are not casually mixed. Compare net benefits, explaining why one alternative’s total appears larger than another. Before finalizing, examine whether that total conceals severe harm concentrated on a small group. This exposes aggregation’s limitations, rather than guaranteeing protection for every minority. Explain financial results alongside distribution and nonfinancial harms, instead of letting the total end the discussion.
Plant Consolidation: Hypothetical
Estimate the First-Year Effects on Employees and Owners
Consider a hypothetical regional appliance manufacturer, operating three plants and considering consolidation. It proposes closing the oldest plant, moving production into the other two. The table estimates each group’s first-year financial effects, in millions of dollars. Two hundred twenty displaced employees lose fourteen point two million dollars, including wages, benefits, and relocation. Their severance and job-placement assistance provide an estimated benefit of three point one million dollars. Subtracting costs from benefits gives employees a loss of eleven point one million dollars. Four hundred eighty remaining employees have no direct cost listed in this comparison. Their improved job security and modest wage growth are valued at two point four million dollars. Shareholders have no direct cost listed, and projected annual fixed-cost savings of nine point six million dollars. Severance is an employee benefit here; the paying firm’s cost involves a different accounting perspective. Keep transfers and stakeholder viewpoints explicit, because double counting would distort the comparison.
Plant Consolidation: Hypothetical
Include the Town and Customers in the Same Comparison
The host town also bears an estimated cost, even though it does not operate the plant. Lost tax revenue and reduced local spending total four point eight million dollars annually. No direct benefit to that town is listed, so its estimated net effect is negative. Customers have no direct cost listed, and projected aggregate price savings of one point two million dollars. That benefit depends on lower production costs supporting price reductions, rather than savings automatically reaching buyers. The five totals give a first-year loss of two point seven million dollars. Net benefit is the estimated benefit minus the estimated cost, not simply the benefit alone. The unit and time horizon must remain consistent, when values from different groups are combined. These amounts describe a hypothetical example, rather than a reported company’s verified results. They represent selected financial effects, not every feature of the people’s welfare or every possible alternative. A complete comparison would estimate alternatives, using the same scope and assumptions.
Distribution Matters
Three Positive Group Totals Do Not Establish an Overall Gain
Three groups gain in the source table, but counting groups does not measure the overall result. Remaining employees, shareholders, and customers have positive totals, while displaced employees and the town lose. The gains add to thirteen point two million dollars, across those three positively affected groups. The losses add to fifteen point nine million dollars, across the two negatively affected groups. Their difference is a first-year loss of two point seven million dollars. This reproduces the numerical trade-off shown in the source chart, while keeping every group visible. The displaced employees bear the largest negative amount, and shareholders receive the largest positive amount. Neither a majority of groups nor the organization’s savings alone establishes an aggregate gain. Even a positive total would leave the distribution open to ethical examination. A group total also does not explain how much each individual member experiences. This leads to questions about magnitude, duration, certainty, and scope, beyond adding dollars.
The Greatest-Good Calculation
Ask Four Questions beyond the Dollar Total
The greatest-good calculation used here asks four questions about projected outcomes. Magnitude asks how large the benefit or harm is, for each person affected. Losing a job may matter far more personally, than receiving a small increase in share value. Duration asks how long the effect lasts, distinguishing immediate events from continuing consequences. One-time severance and recurring cost savings therefore require different treatment in the timing analysis. Certainty asks how likely the projected outcome is, based on evidence and assumptions. Engineering estimates of savings differ from forecasts that customers will receive lower prices. Scope asks how many people are affected, and how directly the decision reaches them. Two hundred twenty displaced employees face direct, serious effects, while many customers may gain indirectly. Scope differs from magnitude; a large population does not mean each person experiences a large effect. Together, these factors explain features that a single financial total can obscure.
Timing and Assumptions
A Longer Horizon Can Change the Result without Guaranteeing It
The first-year estimate is a snapshot, rather than a complete forecast of later years. Some severance and relocation effects may occur once, while projected fixed-cost savings recur annually. These differences can change the comparison, when examined over a longer horizon. However, the host town’s lost tax revenue and spending are also described as annual losses. Displaced workers’ wage and benefit losses may persist, depending on employment opportunities and other circumstances. It would be misleading to assume all losses disappear, while every projected benefit continues unchanged. Customer savings are uncertain, because lower costs do not automatically require a particular price reduction. Competition and pricing decisions influence how much benefit, if any, reaches customers. Estimate relevant future costs and benefits consistently, explaining recurring effects, one-time effects, and transfers. The source lacks enough detail to calculate a reliable total for later years. A longer horizon may be more favorable, but its precise result requires additional assumptions and evidence.
Product Recall: Hypothetical
Keep Each Safety Estimate and Its Assumptions Visible
Consider a hypothetical electronics company, discovering a battery defect that causes overheating. The reported frequency is roughly one in forty thousand units sold, with a small risk of minor burns. A full recall is projected to cost eighteen million dollars, including replacements, logistics, and reputational damage. Leaving the defect unaddressed is projected to produce two hundred fifty minor-injury incidents, over remaining product lifespans. That estimate uses current usage patterns, while hundreds of thousands of units are described as still circulating. Keep these values as separate source assumptions, rather than deriving one mechanically from another. The source does not fully specify a common exposure period or denominator for those estimates. It also provides no monetary valuation for the projected injuries, so an exact financial tie cannot be established. The ethical comparison still needs to consider bodily harm, even without assigning each injury a dollar amount. Limited field reports and projected incidents introduce uncertainty, which deserves explicit examination. Apply the four factors to explain the safety concern, rather than treating the recall cost as decisive.
Apply the Four Factors
The Safety Analysis Supports Recall in This Example
Magnitude draws attention to minor burns as real bodily harms, despite their described limited severity. Duration asks how long the risk persists, through the remaining lives of products still in use. That exposure can continue for years, rather than ending when the company first learns of the defect. Certainty examines the evidence behind the estimated incident rate, including limited early field reports. Those reports may understate risk; investigate the uncertainty instead of assuming the estimate is complete. Scope concerns the large population of products and users, across which a low probability still matters. Taken together, the source’s four-factor argument favors recall in this hypothetical example. That ethical conclusion does not establish every legal reporting duty or the required corrective action. Applicable requirements depend on product facts and jurisdiction, beyond the financial comparison alone. Official consumer product safety guidance distinguishes reporting a potential hazard, from automatically requiring a recall. Keep the ethical reasoning and applicable obligations connected, while explaining the separate basis for each conclusion.
Useful Applications and Limits
A Favorable Aggregate Can Conceal Serious Ethical Problems
Utilitarian reasoning is useful when a decision creates competing effects, across several affected groups. It encourages explicit alternatives and assumptions, rather than allowing the favored option to escape comparison. However, dignity, trust, and employee morale can resist meaningful conversion into monetary values. An arbitrary low estimate may conceal a real burden, making the preferred plan appear more attractive. Aggregation creates another difficulty, because many modest gains can outweigh a severe loss numerically. The overall total can therefore look favorable, while a small group bears a serious concentrated harm. That distribution remains ethically significant, even when the addition itself is correct. Finally, each input involves judgment, including the projected magnitude, duration, certainty, and scope. Overly optimistic assumptions can make a preferred option seem justified, after the decision is effectively made. Expose those assumptions, examine uncertainty, and preserve nonfinancial effects in the explanation. Scope describes reach and directness, while magnitude describes impact per person; avoid confusing the two.
Review and Connect
Explain the Comparison, Its Assumptions, and Its Limits
The first review question asks why utilitarian reasoning requires alternatives, rather than examining one option alone. Better consequences mean better than realistic competing choices, so the comparison supplies the necessary reference. The plant total is negative because two large losses exceed the three gains, despite their group count. Timing helps interpret that first-year figure, but recurring losses prevent assuming an automatically favorable long-run result. The certainty question asks how likely projected outcomes are, and how well evidence supports them. In the recall example, limited early reports may understate risk, making uncertainty relevant to the decision. Employee trust or morale after layoffs illustrates a harm that can be difficult to price meaningfully. An excessively low monetary value can hide its significance, and distort the recommendation. Aggregation can be a weakness because widespread modest gains may outweigh severe harm to a minority. Explain that distribution, alongside the total, rather than treating arithmetic as the complete ethical argument. Use magnitude, duration, certainty, and scope to deepen a careful comparison of business consequences.
About Business Ethics at UPI Study
Business Ethics (Business 211) is a self-paced online course of 105 video lessons in 19 chapters, from moral reasoning and compliance to governance, diversity, government and society, social responsibility, consumers, advertising, technology, the environment and global business. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Which ethics course? · Business Law vs Business Ethics
Why take it here
Why students take Business Ethics with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Business Ethics carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Applying Utilitarian Thinking to Business Situations
What is the utility principle in business ethics?
How do you do a stakeholder cost-benefit analysis?
Can a decision that benefits most stakeholder groups still have a negative net result?
What are the main weaknesses of utilitarian analysis in business?
About the Business Ethics course
How many college credits is Business Ethics?
How much does Business Ethics cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Business Ethics take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Business Ethics.
105 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →