South African Investment and Utilitarian Principles
South African Investment and Utilitarian Principles
“Utilitarianism is a general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society” (Velasquez, 2010, p. 59). The Ford Pinto example (Velasquez, 2010, pp. 60-61) calculated utilitarian benefits as a straight-line computation based upon monetary values which were placed on costs and benefits and making a decision based upon where the scale showed the greatest net financial returns. In such a computational process, posing the question as to whether utilitarian benefits (financial return) outweigh injustice and moral rights violations presupposed that justice and morality are for sale, to be bought and sold at whim. However, this application of utilitarian principles is faulty and such a posed question would be fallacious. The utilitarian standard of morality is, “a moral principle, that is, that claims that something is right to the extent that it diminishes social costs and increases social benefits” (Velasquez, 2010, p. 59). The key here is that social costs and benefits are distinct from financial costs and benefits. In some cases, applying such a moral question requires one to choose the lesser of evils; this opens the door for debate as to which choice that should be. Such a debate occurred regarding the Caltex project in South Africa during the 1970’s and 1980’s (Velasquez, 2010, pp. 58-60). There can be no question that the South African government at that time was guilty of human rights violations and incredible injustice. However, what was Caltex’s part in that? Caltex was criticized as actively supporting the South African government’s policies; support for these policies was based upon taxes paid to the government and locally refined oil being sold to the government (“Student Guide,” 2009, p. 41). Certainly, providing money and supplies did in fact provide some assistance to the government. Therefore,
“Utilitarianism is a general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society” (Velasquez, 2010, p. 59). The Ford Pinto example (Velasquez, 2010, pp. 60-61) calculated utilitarian benefits as a straight-line computation based upon monetary values which were placed on costs and benefits and making a decision based upon where the scale showed the greatest net financial returns. In such a computational process, posing the question as to whether utilitarian benefits (financial return) outweigh injustice and moral rights violations presupposed that justice and morality are for sale, to be bought and sold at whim. However, this application of utilitarian principles is faulty and such a posed question would be fallacious. The utilitarian standard of morality is, “a moral principle, that is, that claims that something is right to the extent that it diminishes social costs and increases social benefits” (Velasquez, 2010, p. 59). The key here is that social costs and benefits are distinct from financial costs and benefits. In some cases, applying such a moral question requires one to choose the lesser of evils; this opens the door for debate as to which choice that should be. Such a debate occurred regarding the Caltex project in South Africa during the 1970’s and 1980’s (Velasquez, 2010, pp. 58-60). There can be no question that the South African government at that time was guilty of human rights violations and incredible injustice. However, what was Caltex’s part in that? Caltex was criticized as actively supporting the South African government’s policies; support for these policies was based upon taxes paid to the government and locally refined oil being sold to the government (“Student Guide,” 2009, p. 41). Certainly, providing money and supplies did in fact provide some assistance to the government. Therefore,
References: Student guide: PHI445 personal and organizational ethics. (2009). Ashford University. Velasquez, M. (2006). Business ethics (6th ed.) New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.