Utilitarian Social Thought, History of

Crimmins, James E.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.03143-3

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The standard utilitarian theory has the following moral claims: the rightness (wrong) of an action is determined by the good (bad) of its consequences; the only good thing in itself is a pleasure and the only bad thing in itself is pain; and happiness (suffering) is a collection of pleasures and pains so that the correctness of an action is determined by its contribution to the happiness of all those affected (Crimmins, 2015).…”

Section: Theoretical Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Utilitarianism allows individual agents to have moral preferences and act in the interests of others when actions toward others result in a net utility gain for the individual (Becker, 1996). In Bentham’s utility theory (Bentham in Crimmins, 2015), the action does not depend on its initial motive. The relative utility is determined solely by its consequences, namely, the resulting gain or loss when deciding whether to act or act to do what, the individual must calculate to the best of his ability the pleasure and pain that could reasonably be obtained by the people (including himself) who are affected by the action under consideration itself.…”

Section: Theoretical Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of utilitarianism’s most effective modern criticisms was John Rawls (John Rawls in Crimmins, 2015). Rawls argues that in calculating only interests and aggregations between people to arrive at appropriate actions or policies, utilitarians fail to “take seriously” differences between people.…”

Section: Theoretical Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Paying a premium for an accounting crime

Dharmayuni¹

2021

JFC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to look at how the intention of a person when facing a dilemma to choose a good outcome (utilitarian) or a good and ethical process regardless of the outcome (deontological) by raising the case of PT. Asuransi Jiwasraya (Jiwasraya). Design/methodology/approach This study was conducted using a literature study method where researchers will analyze through previous research and news related to ethics, psychology and Jiwasraya cases. Findings In the Jiwasraya case, it can be said that the deontology principle has been violated, but the utilitarian principle also cannot provide benefits to the parties who should benefit, namely, the premium payers and the owners of third parties funds. In terms of intentions, at first, Jiwasraya’s management may intend to save and provide benefits to customers and the public who deposit funds at Jiwasraya (utilitarian principle). However, over time, managers choose to “allow” conditions to occur and even begin to engage in activities to take advantage of certain parties and groups by taking policies that are not by the rules (violating deontological principles) for personal gain. Research limitations/implications This study only discusses the Jiwasraya case through financial and accounting reports. Future studies can continue this research by looking at the Jiwasraya case through the law and legislation to obtain a complete picture. Practical implications With this research, it is hoped that the authors can better understand that the dilemma the author faces is rooted in the limitations of the abilities as humans; the ethics will influence all intentions for the choices the authors make. Originality/value This research uses case studies that occurred in Indonesia, the discussion is carried out using a utilitarian and deontological approach that has never been discussed regarding the Jiwasraya case before.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%