Ethics in action – part 3/3

Examining the situations using Utilitarian ethics. Let us look at the imaginary situations in Part 1 using utilitarian ethics. In situation 1, the only person that benefits from the lie is the student himself. He is the only person that gets the money resulting from the fraudulent claim. The vast majority of the British public is at loss because they have to subsidize this fraudster. Obviously, if he asks around, he would be able to find people to support his fraudulent doings, especially those who are embroiled in - or have attempted to commit - benefits frauds themselves. After all, birds of a feather flocks together. Still, according to utilitarianism, the action of claiming benefits when he is not entitled to is still morally wrong. In situation 2, the only person to benefit is the student. She gets a cheaper car insurance resulting from his lie. If she takes other passengers in the car and gets into an accident, the insurance may not be valid (due to false information) and everyone would have to suffer the consequences of her lie. The action is therefore morally wrong. Situations 3 and 4 are rather different because this time more than one person is gets the benefits of the lies. So the approach must be slightly different. Before delving further, I want to state that I cannot give a definitive answer because I am examining the situations from a very narrow perspective. There are more issues involved such as the validity of the contract between two parties, the necessity of the event (situation 3) and the necessity of travelling (situation 4). This part of the analysis is handicapped in the sense that it only looks at the act of lying and the bigger picture is ignored. Let us look now at situation 4. The family wants to save money and therefore they chose to deliberately hide the presence of a third child. The room thus become overcrowded by one. If anything were to happen, say if the building caught fire, then perhaps this particular room occupied by the family would not be covered by insurance. Other than that, no real harm is caused. And a family of five benefits from the lie, while only one party (i.e. the hotel) is harmed. And even then, relatively speaking, the “harm” to the hotel is negligible. I cannot give an absolute opinion in this case but I am inclined to say that according to utilitarianism ethics, lying in this instance is morally justifiable provided that the risk of causing a bigger harm (e.g. the children causing massive damage to the property) is manageable. The family must also be able to manage the risk of getting caught by hotel management because if they do get caught, then there is a possibility they will be left without accommodation. This is a greater harm to a greater number of people (i.e. the whole family of five). If the risk is not manageable (e.g. the children are too loud), and they know the risk of getting caught is too big, then the lying is not justifiable as it may bring a greater harm to a greater number of people. In situation 3, if the presence of an additional 100 participants were not detected by the venue management, then the organization saves a huge amount of money. They have done it before. From their previous experience, they managed to “hide” 15 people from being caught. Subsequently, if the arguments used for situation 4 were to be applied, then it would be morally right to proceed provided that the risk of causing a bigger harm (e.g. damage to the property) is manageable. Getting caught is also a risk that needs to be managed. If they do get caught, then the whole event is put at risk. If the organization is unable to manage the risk of getting caught, then the action is wrong because it would bring greater harm to a greater number of people (e.g. all 300 may get evicted). But if the organization is able to nullify the risk of getting caught, then the greater majority would benefit from the lie. Should the event go ahead with 300 participants, and they are not caught, then a greater number of people would benefit. Perhaps in this case utilitarians would say that lying is morally justifiable. But once again, I cannot supply an absolute answer as readers may have different interpretation of the situations. There is one very important proviso when looking at situations 3 and 4. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that it is morally justifiable to lie in these circumstances, then there is a need to be able to manage risks. In situation 4, the family must be able to manage the risk of (1) the children causing damage to the property; and (2) getting caught. In situation 3 the organization must be able to manage the risk of (1) the participants causing damage to the venue; and (2) getting caught. If these provisos can be fulfilled, then, using utilitarian ethics, lying would bring the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. Thus lying is justifiable. If one were to use utilitarianism to justify lying in situations like these, then the key therefore lies in risk management. Managing one extra child or fifteen extra participants is not the same as managing 100 extra participants. The possibility of getting caught, for example, is much bigger as the number increases. If the same “tool” were to be used to analyse different scenarios, then reaching the wrong decision is inevitable. The organization in situation 3 is facing a different magnitude of risk compared to their previous experience or compared to the family in situation 4. Thus, I would stipulate that in the cases of situations 3 and 4, risk management is just as important as ethics and morality. To simply look at them solely from the angle of previous experience or solely from the perspectives of right vs. wrong is wrong. Assuming that lying is morally justifiable, and you can manage the risk, then it is also morally justifiable to lie for the greater good. However, assuming that lying is morally justifiable, but you cannot manage the risk, then lying becomes morally unjustifiable as you would ultimately cause a greater harm. Having said all the above, I want to once again reiterate that there are more issues at stake. This analysis has been greatly over-simplified to allow examination of one issue only and from the perspective of philosophical ethics only. This issue also needs to be looked at from the religious perspectives since philosophical ethics is incapable of linking all actions to the command of the Supreme Being. End.