Ethical Engineering: Definitions, Theories and Techniques - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 26

the ethical decision maker to give no greater value to their own good or happiness
than to that of anyone else. One problem is that it does not take into account the
distribution of benefi ts and therefore tends to support the status quo. Thus, a scheme
which further enriched the richest 10% of the population but had no effect on
poverty could be considered ethical in terms of utilitarian ethics if it enriched the
rich suffi ciently.
Utilitarianism can further be categorised as:
1. General utilitarianism, which is based on considering the consequences 'if every-
one did that'.
2. Act utilitarianism, which is based on assessing which of the actions open to you
are likely to produce the greatest balance of 'good' (however defi ned) over 'evil'.
However, this could require you to carry out an act which is wrong in itself, such
as paying bribes in order to obtain a contract which will bring jobs to your area,
if the action is expected to have an overall positive effect.
3. Rule utilitarianism, which is based on acting in accordance with rules to achieve
the greatest good. However, unlike rule deontological ethics, the rules to be
followed are derived from their expected consequences rather than their value in
themselves. In addition determination of these rules is generally based on their
expected effects in general rather than in a specifi c case.
Another division of utilitarianism (Lappé and Bailey 1999 ) is into:
1. Positive utilitarianism, which assesses new technologies in terms of their benefi ts
against the risks and costs and generally favours new technologies and pays little
attention to the risks of, for instance, the destruction of ecosystems.
2. Negative utilitarianism, which is mainly concerned with offsetting or mitigating
present or future harms and is more obviously compatible with the precautionary
principle (Harremoës et al. 2002 ).
Thus, both positive and negative utilitarianism compare costs and benefi ts, but
positive utilitarianism does so in a way that stresses the benefi ts, whereas negative
utilitarianism is more concerned with the costs.
There has been considerable criticism, as well as spirited defence of utilitarian-
ism (Scheffl er 1994 ). A particular problem is the lack of consideration of equity and
distribution of benefi ts. There is also a lack of clarity about exactly what utilitarianism
maximises. In the literature, the concept of agent-centred restrictions, i.e. allowing
'good' not to be maximised in circumstances where it would require unethical
actions to be carried out, is controversial. However, the discussion is often in the
context of extreme examples, such as being forced to choose to kill one person in
order to save others (Scarre 1996 ), though such choices are rarely put into a
historical context in which they would be relevant. This indicates a lack of fl exibility
in the theory and the need to combine utilitarian with deontological and other
approaches to ethics.