The fi rst of the moral theories that will be considered is utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism The fi rst of the moral theories that will be considered is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism holds that those actions are good that serve to maximize human well-being. The

40 3.3 Ethical Theories

emphasis in utilitarianism is not on maximizing the well-being of the individual, but rather on maximizing the well-being of society as a whole, and as such it is some- what of a collectivist approach. An example of this theory that has been played out in this country many times over the past century is the building of dams. Dams often lead to great benefi t to society by providing stable supplies of drinking water, fl ood control, and recreational opportunities. However, these benefi ts often come at the expense of people who live in areas that will be fl ooded by the dam and are required to fi nd new homes, or lose the use of their land. Utilitarianism tries to bal- ance the needs of society with the needs of the individual, with an emphasis on what will provide the most benefi t to the most people.

Utilitarianism is fundamental to many types of engineering analysis, including risk–benefi t analysis and cost–benefi t analysis, which we will discuss later. However, as good as the utilitarian principle sounds, there are some problems with it. First, as seen in the example of the building of a dam, sometimes what is best for everyone may be bad for a particular individual or a group of individuals. An example of this problem is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. WIPP is designed to be a permanent repository for nuclear waste generated in the United States. It consists of a system of tunnels bored into underground salt forma- tions. These salt beds are considered by geologists to be extremely stable, especially to incursion of water which could lead to seepage of the nuclear wastes into ground- water. However, there are many who oppose this facility, principally on the grounds that transportation of the wastes across highways has the potential for accidents that might cause health problems for people living near these routes.

An analysis of WIPP using utilitarianism might indicate that the disposal of nuclear wastes is a major problem hindering the implementation of many useful technologies, including medicinal uses of radioisotopes and nuclear generation of electricity. Solution of this waste disposal problem will benefi t society by providing improved health care and more plentiful electricity. The slight potential for adverse health effects for individuals living near the transportation routes is far outweighed by the overall benefi ts to society. So, WIPP should be allowed to open. As this exam- ple demonstrates, the utilitarian approach can seem to ignore the needs of indi- viduals, especially if these needs seem relatively insignifi cant.

Another objection to utilitarianism is that its implementation depends greatly on knowing what will lead to the most good. Frequently, it is impossible to know exactly what the consequences of an action are. It is often impossible to do a com- plete set of experiments to determine all of the potential outcomes, especially when humans are involved as subjects of the experiments. So, maximizing the benefi t to society involves guesswork and the risk that the best guess might be wrong. Despite these objections, utilitarianism is a valuable tool for ethical problem solving, provid- ing one way of looking at engineering ethics cases.

Before ending our discussion of utilitarianism, it should be noted that there are many fl avors of the basic tenets of utilitarianism. Two of these are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism focuses on individual actions rather than on rules. The best known proponent of act utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), who felt that most of the common rules of morality (e.g., don’t steal, be honest, don’t harm others) are good guidelines derived from centuries of human experience. However, Mill felt that individual actions should be judged based on whether the most good was produced in a given situation, and rules should be bro- ken if doing so will lead to the most good.

Rule utilitarianism differs from act utilitarianism in holding that moral rules are most important. As mentioned previously, these rules include “do not harm others” and

Chapter 3 Understanding Ethical Problems 41

“do not steal.” Rule utilitarians hold that although adhering to these rules might not always maximize good in a particular situation, overall, adhering to moral rules will ultimately lead to the most good. Although these two different types of utilitarianism can lead to slightly different results when applied in specifi c situations, in this text, we will consider these ideas together and not worry about the distinctions between the two.

3.3.3 Cost–Benefi t Analysis One tool often used in engineering analysis, especially when trying to determine whether a project makes sense, is cost–benefi t analysis. Fundamentally, this type of analysis is just an application of utilitarianism. In cost–benefi t analysis, the costs of a

John Stuart Mill, a leading philosopher of utilitarianism. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

42 3.3 Ethical Theories

project are assessed, as are the benefi ts. Only those projects with the highest ratio of benefi ts to costs will be implemented. This principle is similar to the utilitarian goal of maximizing the overall good.

As with utilitarianism, there are pitfalls in the use of cost–benefi t analysis. While it is often easy to predict the costs for most projects, the benefi ts that are derived from them are often harder to predict and to assign a dollar value to. Once dollar amounts for the costs and benefi ts are determined, calculating a mathematical ratio may seem very objective and therefore may appear to be the best way to make a decision. However, this ratio can’t take into account many of the more subjective aspects of a decision. For example, from a pure cost–benefi t discussion, it might seem that the building of a dam is an excellent idea. But this analysis won’t include other issues such as whether the benefi ts outweigh the loss of a scenic wilderness area or the loss of an endangered species with no current economic value. Finally, it is also important to determine whether those who stand to reap the benefi ts are also those who will pay the costs. It is unfair to place all of the costs on one group while another reaps the benefi ts.

It should be noted that although cost–benefi t analysis shares many similarities with utilitarianism, cost–benefi t analysis isn’t really an ethical analysis tool. The goal of an ethical analysis is to determine what the ethical path is. The goal of a cost– benefi t analysis is to determine the feasibility of a project based on costs. When looking at an ethical problem, the fi rst step should be to determine what the right course of action is and then factor in the fi nancial costs in choosing between ethical alternatives.