Introduction
Workplace ethical dilemmas are often challenging to resolve because they affect many people and have specific implications. Thus, relevant moral theories should be applied to find the best solution, and this paper focuses on utilitarianism and its primary theorist, John Stuart Mill (1870). Following the views of Mosley (1998) and utilitarianism, Affirmative Action should be implemented, and it is best to offer the job to Molly because this solution increases her happiness and ultimately reduces the nationwide pain of experiencing oppression.
Details of the Case
The case at hand presents a rather interesting moral dilemma. There are two candidates with the relevant skills, knowledge, education, and leadership experience for a position in the Federal Government. Molly is an African American woman from an affluent family, having a minor in US Civics. In turn, Cameron is an Irish-American male from a working-class household who graduated with a degree in US History. Both candidates are well-suited for the position, given their qualifications and background.
Philosophical Exegesis of the Case’s Aspects
Deciding whether Molly or Cameron should be selected for the position seems challenging. On the one hand, Cameron is not from a wealthy household, and his success in getting a scholarship and graduating from Princeton is striking and should be rewarded. On the other hand, he is a white male, which makes him more likely to find another great position than Molly. If the African American woman is not given the job, concerns may arise about whether such a decision is discriminatory, while Affirmative Action can help mitigate this issue (Mosley, 1998). Thus, the ethical and philosophical dilemma is whether Molly’s gender and race are relevant enough to justify selecting her over Cameron.
Exploring and Applying the Philosophical Views
Mill’s Perspective
Before applying Mill’s views to the identified case scenario, it is essential to review the ethical theory in detail. Overall, according to Mill (1870), the foundation of morals and virtue lies in the utilitarian principle, and adhering to it can lead to improved living conditions and greater happiness (Schefczyk, n.d.). Therefore, utilitarianism emphasizes the need to consider and weigh the potential consequences of actions and inaction, rather than focusing on whether ethical sentiments guide a particular behavior. As stated by Schefczyk (n.d.), this theory of ethics holds that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness” (para. 1). Mill’s primary concept is also that sympathizing others and striving for perfection are two processes inherent in human nature and can guide most people in their actions, especially because every individual is capable of moral development and improvement.
Therefore, it is possible to use utilitarianism to justify any decision or behavior as long as it can make most humans satisfied, pleased, and happy. Suppose the latter is not relevant in a particular scenario. In that case, utilitarians aim to minimize the overall rate of pain experienced by the greatest number of individuals (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). The great emphasis placed on happiness and pleasure can lead some people to think that utilitarianism is equivalent to hedonism.
However, while these theories are interrelated to a significant extent, Mill (1870) makes a critical remark. Thus, “in contrast to a form of hedonism that conceives pleasure as a homogeneous matter, Mill was convinced that some types of pleasure are more valuable than others in virtue of their inherent qualities” (Schefczyk, n.d., para. 2). These more vital and beneficial types of pleasure are based on higher faculties. They should play an adequate role in people’s lives. For example, education, imagination, intellectual assets, feelings, and ethical sentiments are the most valued aspects of pleasure and should be preferred over the lower faculties of joy.
At the same time, it is worth noting that specific disadvantages or weaknesses identified in this system of ethics can sometimes render it inapplicable. For instance, it is confusing that utilitarianism requires one to choose between “focus on minimizing the number of bad lives or on maximizing the number of good lives” (Schefczyk, n.d., para. 11). This requirement is somewhat problematic and can cause additional issues. Secondly, it is not always evident which party involved in a specific situation should be considered (Trevino & Nelson, 2021). If the same number of individuals will benefit and suffer from the choice, who and how will decide which group of people and whose interests are more important?
Pojman’s and Mosley’s Perspectives
Two other philosophers should be reviewed in relation to the case. Thus, according to Pojman (1998), Affirmative Action only allows underrepresented individuals to discriminate against innocent people. Instead, for Mosley (1998), this practice is essential as it helps females and racial minorities by addressing the widely perceived supremacy and exclusivity of men and whites. Therefore, these two opposing positions can offer different solutions to the highlighted issue.
The primary aspects of utilitarianism demonstrate the theory’s strength, applicability, and relevance, while also highlighting some concerns regarding its applicability in all scenarios. When considering utilitarian views and Mosley’s (1998) ideas in the case study summarized above, Affirmative action should be preferred, and Molly should be given the job. As an African American and a woman, Molly is likely to be experiencing at least twice as many challenges, oppression cases, and discriminatory attitudes as any female, Black male, or white person (Mosley, 1998). Therefore, if she receives the position, this will increase her happiness and reduce her pain more than it would benefit Cameron. At the same time, Pojman (1998) would give the job to Cameron. The primary reason is that the philosopher views Affirmative Action as yet another form of discrimination.
Why Utilitarianism Offers the Best Solution
The purpose of utilitarianism is to strive for higher pleasures, and Molly will gain intellectual and cultural delights, as well as a sense of accomplishment. All these benefits are more accessible to Cameron, and if he receives them now, his pleasure levels will not reach Molly’s. Unlike Pojman(1998) but similar to Mosley (1998), utilitarianism supports Affirmative Action. Offering the position to Molly is the best solution because it will lead to greater happiness and reduce discriminatory practices.
Personal Solution
I support the utilitarian choice and would also give this opportunity to Molly. Pojman (1998) argues that Affirmative Action only makes former victims the new oppressors, but this paper does not support this claim. Mosley (1998) says that “policies designed to facilitate the inclusion of blacks and women are meant not as an expression of the racial and sexual superiority of blacks and females over white males” (p. 161). Increasing the happiness of an African American female is a great way to reduce racial and gender discrimination and contribute to the nationwide reduction of pain caused by oppression.
Conclusion
To conclude, Mill’s theory can justify Affirmative Action because both utilitarianism and Affirmative Action aim to enhance overall happiness. Despite some weaknesses, utilitarianism offers the best solution to the case. Molly needs to receive the job to experience much less oppression and discrimination, which is an excellent contribution to nationwide inclusion, acceptance, and diversity. In my opinion, Molly also deserves this opportunity, and it would be fairer and more moral to hire her.
References
Mill, J. S. (1870). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Company.
Mosley, A. (1998). Policies of straw or policies of inclusion? International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 12(2), 161-168.
Pojman, L. P. (1998). The case against Affirmative Action. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 12(1), 97-115.
Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2021). Comparative perspectives on racial discrimination in hiring: The rise of field experiments. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 391-415.
Schefczyk, M. (n.d.). John Stuart Mill: Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. John Wiley & Sons.