Ethical Theory & Business: A Study Based On Utilitarianism and Kantianism

Int.J. Hum. Soc. Dev. Res.
ISSN(P):2521-1439; ISSN(E):2523-4331
Volume 2, Number 1, 2018. 107-124
DOI:10.30546/2523-4331.2018.2.1.107
ETHICAL THEORY & BUSINESS
A study based on Utilitarianism and Kantianism
Amrendra Kumar SINGH

Northern Border University, Saudi Arabia
Nirbhay Kumar MISHRA

GLA University, Mathura, India
© The Author(s) 2018

ABSTRACT
The main purpose of this paper is to develop an ethical stand point, which can be
appropriate and useful for current business practices. For this purpose, we have selected
two major ethical theories namely, Deontology and Consequentialism. This is done in six
parts: First, we analyze the general aim of ethics in the realm of business; second, we take
overview of these two ethical theories; third, we demonstrate the significance of these two
ethical theories; fourth, we discuss the pitfalls of these two ethical theories; lastly, we try to
analyze and develop the ‘Consequence-Based Principle’ as a stand point on the basis of
above studies.
©2018.All rights reserved
ARTICLE HISTORY KEYWORDS
Received: 25/12/2017 Deontology, consequentialism,

Accepted: 26/03/2018 business, ethics, theory
Published online: 01/04/2018
www.ijhsdr.com
107
108 Amrendra Kumar SINGH, Nirbhay Kumar MISHRA
1. Introduction
A Lingering difficulty in the field of business ethics is the acquisition

of a stable and appropriate theoretical base. The feeling one gets from the
literature (texts, articles, books) and current business experience is that
despite the traditional and important ethical theories (Deontology and
Consequentialism), business people are facing problems while practicing
these theories to resolve the business complexities, making policies and
taking decisions because of their disparate and absolute nature.
Consequently, eclecticism seems to dominate over the need for focus and
securing of a common foundation. The presentation of ethical theory in the
literature of the field is almost unpredictable, although Deontology and
Consequentialism seems hard to ignore. Many authors also include such
perspectives as egoism, virtue theory, theories of justice, theories of rights,
universalism, ethical relativism, an ethic of caring, and so on. The
theoretical foundations of business ethics, therefore, are not secure; the
dominant interest in the field seems inclined toward building a diversity of
perspectives, as opposed to identifying a common core of theory.
The objective of this paper is not to construct another ethical

perspective but put together these two major traditional ethical theories
(Deontology and Consequentialism) in such a fashion, which can be
appropriate and productive to guide the current business practices. As a
result, the attitude, policies, decision and behavior of business organizations
within the company as well as towards the society, stakeholders and
environment could be shaped better.
2. The General Aim of the Ethics in the Realm of Business
Ethics is the study of right and wrong; ‘the moral choices people make
and the way in which they seek to justify them. There is almost no aspect of
life that does not in some way inform the process of moral decision-making,
and equality, there is almost no aspect of life to which ethics cannot be
applied. Using ethics to analyze business issues is one form of decision

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
Ethical theory & Business ... 109
making, similar to profit maximization, legal compliance, or religious

beliefs. The difference, however, between ethics and these other bases for
decision is that ethics can serve as the foundation for each of the other
methods. Therefore, in reaching decisions, business people may use ethics
as a guide in legal or religious compliance, and even in accomplishing profit
maximization.
Ethics involves judgments as to good and bad, right and wrong, and
what ought to be. As defined by the Epicurus, ethics “deals with things to be
sought and things to be avoided, with ways of life and with telos.” (Telos is
the chief aim or end in life.) (Diogenes, 1925, Book 10, Chapter 3). Ethics
can be distinguished from “morals”, which are rules or duties that govern
our behavior as persons to persons (such as “do not tell lies” or “do not hurt
another person”) and “values”, which are ends or goals sought by
individuals (such as health or happiness) (Newton, 2000)
When we people in our routine life face the predicament or problems

concerned with morality which is to say norms, rules, principles and
accepted practical behavior of society, then we actually examine the
morality in the context of individual and social behavior, religion, culture,
and personal life. This critical exercise is called moral philosophy or ethics.
When we face the problems or dilemma we need some guidelines, a
framework of ethical principles and values through which these so called
problems could be resolved. Moreover, the ethical theories and ethical
perspectives fulfill this purpose. Ethical theories philosophically investigate
the very foundation and the principle of morality. They provide principles,
values and set a goal for an individual and the society so that we could
resolve our problems and are able to make decisions and choices whenever
we are trapped within the predicaments. As a result, ethical theories provide
a comprehensive framework to guide our behavior so that we could live a
moral life within the society.
Similarly, the general aim of ethics in the realm of business is to guide

individual’s behavior and provide them bases for decision making.
Moreover, in the context of business, ethics have both intrinsic as well as
Int. J. Hum. Soc. Dev. Res.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
instrumental roles. Ethics helps business people to make policies, strategies;

to avoid major frauds and scandals, and make business ethical towards
society, stakeholders and environment. It provides a comprehensive view to
understand the very foundation of business, which is deeply rooted in the
human morality and social ethics. Finally, it can be said that in the context
of business, ethics provides a framework of rules, principles, and values as
well as it functions as an antivirus program, as a psychiatrist and as a
whistle blower. It detects the bad (unethical/ immoral) content and protects
the system (business system) from the affected content and big damages.
Moreover, as a psychiatrist, it analyzes and understands not only immediate
unethical problems but also investigates the unconscious and hidden reason
of unethical human behavior and practices to make better ethical strategies
so that the immoral behavior and practices within the company as well as
towards society and environment could be eliminated.
Now days, ethics is performing its job as a whistleblower (who sounds

the alert on scandal, danger, malpractice, or corruption. In addition to
overtly illegal activities such as bribery, theft, and fraud, and more recently
created legal offences like discrimination in employment, it also includes
negligence, resource wastage, misrepresentation, and safety violations). The
concept of whistle blowing is receiving attention. It is actually an ethical
concept. Whistleblowers are those who sound the alert on scandal, danger,
malpractice, or corruption. In addition to overtly illegal activities such as
bribery, theft, and fraud, and more recently created legal offences like
discrimination in employment, it also includes negligence, resource
wastage, misrepresentation, and safety violations. Thus, in this sense ethics
does its instrumental function in both ways internally and externally. It not
only blows the whistle within the business organization to alert, avoid and
eliminate the malpractices, mismanagement and wrongdoings but it also
creates the same pressure in the context of society and environment through
providing ethical and logical reasons to governmental and non-
governmental organizations, to put pressure on business organization so that
the unethical malpractices could be eliminated and the social, environmental
values and stakeholders rights could be protected. As a result, a harmony
between business, society and environment could be established.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
3. Overview of Consequentialism and Deontology
Ethical theories may be divided in to two categories: conseqentialist

and deontological. The distinction between two theories is actually based on
the way they define the very sense, objective and principles of morality, for
instance, conseqentialist theories determine the ethics of an act by looking
to consequences of decision (the ends), While deontological theories
determine the ethics of an act by looking to very sense of duty and the
process of the decision (the means).
3.1. Conseqentialist Ethical System
The key points, which actually build the structure of Conseqentialist

Ethical System, are as follows:
(1) Principle of Utility

(2) Psychological Hedonism
(3) Types of Utilitarianism: Act Based, Rule Based, and
Preference Based
(4) Quantitative and Qualitative Notion of Pleasure (Utility)
In the conseqentialist ethical system, morality of an action or decision

is determined by measuring the probable outcome or consequences. The
theory most representative of this approach is utilitarianism, it has been one
of the most widespread and influential ethical theories. In its simplest form
it is based on the ‘Principle of Utility’ which is that, in any situation where
there is a moral choice, one should do that which result in the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people. The most basic form of
utilitarian analysis is cost-benefit analysis, where one tallies the costs and
benefits of a given decision and follows the decision that provides for the
greatest overall gain.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
The theory of utilitarianism was set out by Jeremy Bentham and

developed by J S Mill and later by Henery Sidgwick, and in various form it
continues to command the attraction of the philosophers. The classical
utilitarians believe that the ultimate good is something that most people
desire, such as happiness or pleasure. This assumption is actually based on
the psychological hedonism, which is that, we people by nature desire
pleasure and avoid pain. Most modern utilitarians take preference
satisfaction, rather than happiness, to be the ultimate goal at which we
should aim.
Based on the philosophical development the theory of utilitarianism can

be classified in three types, namely, (1) Act Utilitarianism, (2) Rule
Utilitarianism, (3) Preference Utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism theory gives
importance to the results of individual actions rather than moral rules of the
actions. Some modern approaches to act utilitarianism tend to say that an act
should be considered good if, on balance it produces enough happiness. It is
not necessary to show that it produced the maximum happiness possible. On
the contrary, rule utilitarianism emphasized the view that it is possible to
both embrace a concequentialist view of what makes actions right and
wrong, and give an important place to moral rules. Keeping certain rules
produces better consequences than trying to judge the consequences of each
individual action. Moreover, in this theory of rule utilitarianism, rules are
not for the sake of rules but as a means to achieve the desired consequences
in the best way. Preference utilitarianism theory takes in to account the
preferences of all those involved in a particular course of action.
Bentham focuses on the doctrine of ethical hedonism, which asserts

that the only ultimate, intrinsic good is pleasure. According to him
happiness or pleasure should be measured in terms of its duration; its
intensity; how near, immediate and certain is; how free from is its pain, and
whether or not it is likely to lead on to further pleasure. He emphasizes the
quantitative notion of moral action, which is to say each action is good or
bad according to its predicted results in generating the maximum amount of
happiness and he makes no qualitative difference among the different types
of pleasures.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
He notoriously claimed that, provided the quantities of pleasure

yielded were equal, pushpin was as good as poetry.
Mills famous work Utilitarianism, published in 1863, elegantly explains

and argues for utilitarianism (Mill, 1863). He develops a more refined and
sensitive defense of this hedonistic doctrine. He argues that it is not a
doctrine that tells us to spend all our time in riotous living but a theory about
what ultimately value. He rejects the idea that actions are right only because
God says they are, or because they have any inherent moral properties of
their own. Although, his theory is hedonistic it maintains that only ultimate
value that is pleasure or happiness, he maintains a qualitative difference
among the different types of pleasures. He compares about higher and lower
pleasures not only in quantity but also in quality. There are, in other words,
not only greater and lesser pleasures but also better and worse pleasures.
Mill also goes beyond Bentham in proposing a positive place for rules
within an overall utilitarian approach. He accepts what we term rule
utilitarianism, in that a utilitarian principle can lead to the forming of
general rules, which, although may be broken in exceptional circumstances,
should be taken account in any assessment of the result of an action.
According to him, we ought to acquire certain habits, such as truthfulness or
honesty, because there is a better chance of promoting the greatest happiness
of the greatest number with those habits than without them. Thus, he
emphasizes the importance of rules as a general means of securing the
greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Finally, based on general assessment of utilitarianism it can be said that

although in the course of development philosopher have emphasized the
importance of rules and preferences to achieve the greatest happiness for the
greatest number, the main importance is given to only consequences rather
than rules and preferences. Thus, the distinction based on act, rule and
preferences seems useless in the context of practical execution and goal
satisfaction of the theory.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
3.2. Deontological Ethical System
In deontological system, morality of an action is based on rules or

principles that govern actions and decisions. The German philosopher
Immanuel Kant developed perhaps the most persuasive and fully articulated
vision of ethics as measured by the rightness of rules, rather than by
consequences. Kant emphasizes that the rightness of an act depends on the
very principle, rule or duty by which it governs and not at all on the
consequences of an action. For Kant, the key issue is how to discover a
rational basis for one’s sense of duty, and from that to devise a principle by
which one could distinguish between right and wrong. Kant’s moral
philosophy is a reflection upon the direct experience of morality:
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and
awe the oftener and more steadily, we reflect on them: the starry heavens
above me and the moral law within me. I do not merely conjecture them and
see them as though obscured in darkness or in the transcendent region
beyond my horizon: I see them before me, and I associate them directly with
the consciousness of my own existence. Critique of Practical Reason, 1788
The key points, which actually build the structure of deontological

(Kantian) ethical system, are as follows:
(1) Reason: Theoretical and Practical Reason

(2) Apriority: Necessity and Universality
(3) Imperative: Categorical and Hypothetical, Supreme Moral
Principle
(4) Good Will: Duty and Inclination
(5) Phenomenal World and Noumenal World
In contrast to other ethical theories, which describe the origin of

morality from the sense of natural law or human nature and more precisely
from passion, pleasure and desired consequences, for example,
Psychological- hedonism and Utilitarianism, Kant emphasizes that morality
originates from the reason.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
When Kant defines the reason, he differentiates between theoretical

reason and practical reason. According to him, these are not two separate
reasons but two separate functions of the same reason. He explains that
theoretical reason gives the knowledge and understanding of this physical
world by which we come to know the principles of physical world and
matter of facts, while practical reason directs us towards choice in
accordance with moral law and when physically possible, to the
implementation of choice in action.
According to Kant, the primary task of philosopher should be that of

isolating the apriori element in our moral knowledge and showing their
origin. Kant emphasizes that a moral law should be apriori as well as
necessary and universal because necessity and universality are marks of
apriority. Kant actually extracts the universality from the physical universal
law but at the same time, he leaves the determinism of physical world intact
and lays the foundation of morality on the free will and autonomy.
Moreover, here it is customary to discuss that how Kant defines the

supreme principle of morality, which is to say categorical imperative, and
differentiates between the principle and maxim. A principle, in Kant’s
technical terminology, is a fundamental objective moral law, grounded in
the pure practical reason. It is a principle on which all men act if they were
purely rational moral agents, while a maxim is a subjective principle of
volition. That is to say, it is a maxim on which an agent acts as a matter of
fact and which determines his decisions. Such maxim can be, of course, of
diverse kinds; and they may or may not accord with the objective principle
or principles of the moral law.
That is why; Kant makes further distinction between empirical or

material maxim and a priori or formal maxim. The first refer to desired ends
or results while second do not. Kant refers second type of maxim when he
talks about moral value of an action in the context of maxim. He says, if the
subjective principle of volition is obedience to the universal moral law, out
of reverence for the law, the actions governed by this maxim will have
moral worth.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
Kant defines categorical imperative as an apriori moral principle, which

is based on practical reason. He emphasizes freedom as the condition of the
possibility of a categorical imperative. Moreover, he formulates it in several
ways. The initial formulation is known as the formula of Universal Law,
and states that “I ought never to act except in a way that I can also will that
my maxim should become a universal law”. In the context of a priori
universal moral law, he precisely says that universal law has no exception
and can be reached independent of the observation of the world.
When Kant defines categorical imperative, he makes a distinction

between hypothetical and categorical imperative. The hypothetical
imperative depends on the conditions and is used to achieve certain means,
for example, if you want to be healthy men then do exercise. Therefore, in
this case the imperative is subsequent and used as a means. On the contrary,
categorical imperative by the very nature exists without conditions. It is
always used as an antecedent as well as an end in itself.
Kant lays his foundation of morality on autonomy and self-legislation.

For Kant, autonomy is rule by reason (rather than desire), and rule by reason
entails the free adoption of objectively valid moral principles. He
emphasizes that “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of another, never as means only but always at the same
time as an end”. This is known as a formula of end in itself, and is another
way of stating the categorical imperative. Kant believes that if I ought to do
something then it follows that I can do it. He has a famous maxim “ Ought
implies can”. Morality thus implies freedom, but freedom of special kind.
For Kant to act freely is both according to reason and is motivated by it.
Thus, according to Kant morality originates from reason, and is based on
autonomy and self-legislation.
Kant defines will as a rational capacity, which is completely different

from psychological inclinations. However, there is possibility that a will
may be used for the sake of desired consequences and inclinations.
Therefore, Kant defines key moral concept ‘Good Will’ as a categorical
will.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
He emphasizes that a good will is manifested in acting for the sake of

duty and disparate from acting out of mere inclination or desire. Further, he
defines ‘Duty’ as the necessity of acting out of reverence for the law.
Moreover, the only motive to action, which can confer moral worth on the
agent, is the motive of duty.
He defines good will as beyond the space-time in the sense that it is not
related to empirical and material facts. Its value is not governed by the
consequences but it is valuable in itself. Kant emphasizes good will as an
only perfect good, which is apriori as well as good in itself. But how does
the person of good will know what is right? Here, Kant defines the nature of
good will in terms of categorical Imperative, the notion that every person
should act only those principles that she or he, as a rational person, would
prescribe as universal laws to be applied to the whole mankind. Thus,
according to Kant your will is good will if it can be applied categorically as
well as universally.
Kant’s system gives rise to a number of “deontological constrains”, in

other words, duties and obligations that are binding in themselves and not in
virtue of their results. One of them important duty is “always treat other as
ends”. According to him treating another person as a mere means is to
subvert his free will or autonomy; it is cease to respect him for what he
essentially is, a rational being capable of formulating the moral law for
himself and adopting morality as a motive.
Kant harmonizes a-priori, autonomous moral law within the causally

determined empirical world. In this context, he talks about phenomenal
world and noumenal world. He states that we are able to view ourselves
from two standpoints. There is the standpoint of the phenomenal world, the
natural world of cause and effect, the world which is presented to us in
sensory experience. There is also the standpoint of the noumenal world, a
mysterious world of “thing-in-themselves”, of which – at least, as
noumenal-we can have no experience. When we do our duty for duty’s sake,
we actually act with noumenal freedom, at the same time our actions are not
causally explained but rationally justified. Thus, Kant provides us a

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
rationalistic, noumenal, and autonomous moral system which ultimately

explains that we are not only causally determined physical being but we can
look ourselves as an autonomous moral agent. In other worlds, we are
noumenal as well as phenomenal being.
4. Significance of Traditional Ethical Theory (Consequentialism

and Deontology)
In this section, we try to figure out the significance of these two ethical
theories. First, we focus on Utilitarianism, it is viewed as a most practical
and liberal theory because it appeals to no authority in resolving differences
of opinion. It is able to describe much of the process of human decision-
making. In contrast to other ethical theories, which give importance to
natural law or apriori universal law, it provides an objective, practical and
empirical moral view, which gives importance to human nature and his
desires. Moreover, it is easily applicable and suits to general tendency of
human behavior. It prescribes courses of action without fear or favor, giving
equal weight to the pleasures and suffering of all people.
Utilitarianism provides an agent neutral account of morality and treats

all people equally. It tries to establish a greatest balance of good over evil. It
also gives importance to rules and preferences if these things promote
desired result of greatest good. Finally, it gives preference to larger number
of people rather than an individual. Therefore, it promotes general project of
welfare maximization or social welfare.
Now we move to Kantianism, It is a logically compact and well-

structured theory, which values reason as well as freedom. It gives respect to
human dignity and treats humans as ends. It provides a rational basis to
understand the morality. It gives importance to rules as well as freedom in
the course of morality. It gives equal importance to objective moral law as
well as subjective moral worth. In this sense, it also gives value to a moral
agent. Kantian rules recognizes universal rights such as freedom of speech,
freedom of consent, the right to privacy, or freedom of conscience. Another
historically important feature of Kant’s theory is that it combines the
thinking of the Enlightenment with an underlying rigorous moral code.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
The ethics of Kant has given rise to a cluster of approaches. Important

Kantian themes such as autonomy, deontological ethics (based on concept
of duties rather than the quality of outcomes), and the dignity of rational
person are to be found in these approaches.
Finally, Kant’s deontological system provides an objective moral

theory, which is based on practical reason, universality, uniformity,
apriority, autonomy and self-legislation. It emphasizes the intrinsic value (as
ends in themselves) of morality as well as humanity. It treats a moral agent
as an end and presupposes freedom for the execution of a moral action.
Thus, the Kantian system provides a better picture of a rational and moral
world (Kingdom of ends) where all people have their own moral worth,
dignity, freedom and an objective sense of morality.
5. Pitfalls of Utilitarianism and Kantianism
In this section, we try to examine the pitfalls of these two measure

theories. First, we look at the Utilitarianism. It presents an instrumental and
mechanical picture of human morality. If we look over the whole system
then it seems inconsistent. In this system, there is no precise concept of
happiness. One can argue that the concept of happiness is so broad that it
can be taken as the name for whatever a person takes as his or her personal
goal. If that were to be the case, then, from the standpoint of the agent,
utilitarianism offers no objective method of assessing the rights and the
wrongs of an action.
Although, in this system there are the concepts of rules and preferences,
these all concepts have no intrinsic value. They are used for the instrumental
purpose for instance if a rule cannot produced the desired result then it can
be violated for the sake of other rule or action which can produce even
better results. That means, in this system rules are not used as an antecedent
but as a consequent to achieve desired results. Similarly, a moral agency
also plays a subsequent role for the desired purpose. Thus, in this sense a
moral agent is only causally connected within the web of this system as a

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
physical object. Therefore, Bernard Williams rightly says that in this system
there is no room for an individual autonomy.
It provides an agent neutral account of morality as well as gives no

credit to agent’s integrity or moral worth of an action. It is an
impersonalistic notion of morality, which treats a moral agent as means.
Moreover, There is a conflicting view in this system, since utilitarianism
originates from the psychological hedonism, which is essentially related
with egoism, but it strives for the collective notion of morality, in which
there is no value of individual’s ego, effort, emotion, pain, and pleasure.
Thus, this ethical theory is not able to satisfy the subjective notion of moral
worth by the collective notion of morality.
Now we move to Kantianism, although as a theory it is a logically

compact and philosophically well-explained ethical theory, on the practical
level it appears too strict to general human behavior and practice. Because
we people always perform an action to achieve certain objectives, assets,
values and results. In other words, we need some motivation to perform an
action. It excludes the circumstances and the consequences from the course
of morality, which play a certain role to perform an action. Moreover, Kant
does not provide any objective criteria or solution for such cases when we
need to resolve the dilemma between two duties. Moreover, Problems exist,
however, when an individual does not know which rules to follow. For
instance, you might be faced with a dilemma that pits freedom of speech
against the right to privacy. Which rule wins? ‘Duty for the sake of duty’ is
very abstract concept and for the practical execution, there is need of an
inventory of minimal rights and duties, which could guide the human
behavior in complex situations.
In certain sense, this ethical theory seems counter intuitive because in

general human practices people praise for good moral actions and give
credit to moral worth of an action, but it does not give any importance to
individual emotions and efforts in the assessment of morality. Consequently,
it proves as a dry and rigid ethical theory on the practical level. Finally, both
Utilitarianism and Kantianism does not provide any motivation to an
individual in the course of morality.
Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
6. Consequence-Based Principle as a Standpoint (First Phase)
In this section first, we try to figure out the important feature of these
above- discussed theories and with the help of this exercise, we try to
analyze and develop Consequence-Based Principle as a standpoint. Here,
what we are going to discuss is a first stage of this exercise, later in the
second stage we will do an empirical study based on the company’s survey
so that we could develop a mature and practical standpoint, which would be
appropriate and productive for current business practices.
A. Utilitarianism: Based on the utilitarian account we can extract

some important features for a standpoint, as follows:
(1) An ethical principle should be practical as well as it should

take the human nature, conditions, and consequences in the account of
morality.
(2) An ethical principle should work for the general

maximization of good.
(3) An ethical principle should give importance to quality of

good as well as it should take rules and preferences in the account of
morality.
B. Kantianism: Based on the Kantian account we can extract some

important features for a standpoint, as follows:
(1) An ethical principle should be based on objective and rational

reasons.
(2) An ethical principle should provide freedom to agent to

perform the actions.
(3) An ethical principle should treat humanity (society) as well as

environment as ends in themselves.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
Now we discuss the consequence-based principle as well as try to

explore the Utilitarian and Kantian dimensions of this principle in the light
of extracted features of these both theories. Consequence-based principle
actually focuses the responsibilities and duties of business organizations,
which originate from the consequences of the business functions, for
instance, it is responsibility of a business organization to work for local
communities health problem if it affects local community through local
environmental pollution. Following the Utilitarian theory, consequence
based principle focuses on the consequences of business functions in the
context of morality because it imposes the compulsion of social
responsibility or duty on the bases of the consequences of business
functions. It takes consequences in the account of morality to promote
maximum good for the maximum numbers of people as well as to provide
rational and objective reasons to business organization to perform the social
responsibilities and roles.
From the Kantian account, it emphasizes the duties of business

organizations. It also emphasizes on the formula of end in itself in the sense
that society, stakeholders, and environment should not be treated as means
by business organizations for the sake of profit but business organizations
should care of them as end in themselves. Contrary to Kantianism, this
principle does not exclude the consequences of the actions from the morality
as well as it does not impose any responsibility or duty for the sake of
responsibility or duty but it gives consequential reasons to follow the duties.
Thus, Consequence-based principle is an intersection of these two major
ethical theories in which we can see the dimensions of Utilitarianism as well
as Kantianism. This is not only a principle but also a standpoint to define
ethical responsibilities and roles of business. Moreover, it also delineates
and delimits the socio-political roles and responsibilities of the business.
Consequence-based principle is a technical construct, which uses both
Utilitarianism and Kantianism to find an ethical standpoint, which could be
appropriate, productive and applicable for current business practices.

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
7. Conclusion
In this paper, we have tried to develop an ethical standpoint for the

current business practices. In order to find an ethical standpoint, we studied
and examined the two major traditional ethical theories namely,
Utilitarianism and Kantianism. We have discussed the nature, significance
and the importance of these two ethical theories. It is also observed that
despite the importance, these theories prove rigid and difficult when they are
applied in business practices. Nevertheless, we cannot completely ignore
these influential theories in determining and guiding the ethicality of
business practices as well as in the construction of policies, strategies and
decisions. Thus, there is need of a technical construct, which not only use
these two ethical theories but also provide an ethical standpoint that would
be appropriate as well as applicable for the current business practices.
Therefore, to accomplish this need we have analyzed and discussed the
consequence-based principle as an ethical standpoint. Moreover, we have
discussed the Utilitarian and Kantian dimensions of Consequence-Based
Principle. Finally, the whole effort is being done to figure out an ethical
standpoint, which could be applicable in current business situations as well
as which have the bedrock of these two major ethical theories.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Contact Information
E-mail: [email protected]

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124
References and notes:

Baron. M.W., Petit. P., Slote. M. A. (1997). Three Method of Ethics: A Debate.
Hoboken, New Jersey: L Blackwell Publishing.
Beauchamp, T. L. & Bowie, N. E. 1942 - (2001). Ethical Theory and Business (6th Ed).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: N.J Prentice Hall.
Benn, P. (1998). Ethics: Fundamentals of Philosophy (Series Editor: John Shand)
Kingston, Ontario: Mac Gill-Queen’s University Press.
Brady F. N. (1995). Business Meta-Ethics: An Analysis of Two Theories. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 5(3), 385 – 398. doi: 10.2307/3857390
Cavanagh, G., Moberg, D., & Velasquez, M. (1995). Making Business Ethics Practical.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 399 - 418. doi:10.2307/3857391
Dawson, Stuart. & Victoria University of Technology. School of Management. (2000).
Whistleblowing : A broad definition and some issues for Australia. Melbourne,
Vic: Victoria University of Technology
Diogenes. L., (1925). Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. 2 Vols.
Translated by R.D. Hicks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Frederick. Robert.E. (2002). A Companion to Business Ethics. Hoboken, New Jersey:
Blackwell Publishing.
Garber. M., Hanssen. B., & Walkowitz. R. L. (Eds.) (2000) The Turn to Ethics Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Kaler. J. (2000). Discussion: Putting ethical theory in its place, Business Ethics: A
European Review, 9 (3), 211 - 217, doi:10.1111/1467 – 8608.00192.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism (1 ed.). London: Parker, Son & Bourn, West Strand.
Mill. J.S. (1987). Utilitarianism. (first published. 1861). In J.S. Mill and J. Bentham,
Utilitarianism and Other Essays (Ed. by A. Ryan, Harmondsworth). Middlesex:
Penguin Books.
Newton. L.H. (2000). Doing Good and Avoiding Evil: Principles and Reasoning of
Applied Ethics. CT: Program in Applied Ethics: Fairfield University.
Thompson, M. (1999). Ethical theory (Series: Access to Philosophy). London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Weinstein D. (1993). Between Kantianism and Consequentialism. In Green. T. H.
Philosophy, Political Studies, 41 (4), 618 - 653. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9248.tb01660.x

Volume 2, № 1, 2018.107-124

Ethical Theory & Business: A Study Based On Utilitarianism and Kantianism

Uploaded by

Ethical Theory & Business: A Study Based On Utilitarianism and Kantianism

Uploaded by

Int.J. Hum. Soc. Dev. Res.