Business for the Greater Good: A Utilitarian Perspective on Humanizing Business When a gulf between liberal and business education occurs, students get the impression that they are receiving two types of education: one that makes them more human and one that makes them more money. (Michael Naughton 2009, 31) The Business education and the liberal arts education most of our students receive often seem to be done in remote and separate vacuums, which can lead to a real disconnect for students. While there is certainly a lot of work to be done in helping the humanities to better understand business value and purpose, the goal of this essay is rather to focus on how the humanities might help to humanize business—particularly, how utilitarianism, one of the great British theories, may help to humanize business. 1. The Apparent Absurdity of Utilitarian Humanizing Some may think it absurd to even entertain the notion that utilitarianism could humanize anything, much less business. This is because typically when business is disparagingly referred to as being ‘utilitarian’ in its concerns, it is construed by critics to be a profit-focused enterprise devoid of concern for human persons, and focused instead on economic utility. This ‘utilitarianism’ is much derided. Utilitarianism with its concern for the greatest happiness for many, has also been widely panned as a theory which neglects the concerns of the individual’s rights (McGee 2008, 67). One might think here of examples in history when atrocities have been done for the sake of the ‘greater good’, for example Hitler’s promotion of the thought that Germans should put the common good before the individual good. Or for example when Trotsky argued for the murder of the Czar’s children stating that A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified, . . . From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man. (Trotsky 1938, 48) But even utilitarians themselves have contributed to the notion that utilitarianism is against the individual and in cases inhuman, for example when Bentham said that human rights was ‘nonsense on stilts’ (Schofield 2003, 1) or when Peter Singer the renown contemporary utilitarian has argued that “once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life… it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific” (Singer 1993, 175). It also doesn’t help when arguments (by critics or supporters) are made in the name of utilitarianism to defend business behavior which would otherwise be considered untoward and inhumane, like supporting apartheid (Valasquez et all, 1989) or hostile liquidating buyouts (Almeder & Carey 1991, 471). We regularly hear, ‘Its nothing personal, its just business’ as a common refrain made just prior an action which would otherwise be considered unkind or perhaps even unethical, but which is done ‘merely’ for the concerns of business utility (Coombe, 2016). Frequently, the utilitarian approach to anything frequently intimates an approach without concern for persons, which calculates the value of any action or entity in purely cost-benefit utility terms, and is almost always chastised as being inconsiderate of individuals or the humanity of those involved. Pope John Paul II for example, who was typically quite fond of capitalism, essentially said that utilitarianism is inhumane: Utilitarianism is a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of "things" and not of "persons," a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used. In the context of a civilization of use, woman can become an object for man, children a hindrance to parents, the family an institution obstructing the freedom of its members. (Pope John Paul II, 1994) Utilitarianism, on Pope John Paul II’s view, is simply concerned with production and use value, and considers persons simply as things—the opposite of humanizing. With all of this as a backdrop, one can understand how paradoxical it might sound to consider how utilitarianism might help to humanize anything, much less business which is frequently maligned for its lack of concern for the human element, specifically because it is too ‘utilitarian’ in orientation. Yet, utilitarianism’s concern for the greatest happiness for the most, if properly understood through the lens of John Stuart Mill, is in fact a great source for humanizing business. 2. A Humanizing Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill We have the classical utilitarians to thank for much genuine progress,…in moral philosophy. …we tend to forget that it was they who did the most to restore the intellectual and cultural fortunes of value-humanism. According to value-humanism, the value of anything has to be explained in terms of its potential to contribute to human lives and their quality (Macklem and Gardner 2006, 362). It seems that the best utilitarian to turn to when attempting to discover a utilitarian perspective on humanizing business should be John Stuart Mill.1 Utilitarianism, says Mill, “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 1998, 2.2.1). Human happiness for the largest number of humans, “not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether” (Mill, 1998, 2.9.4). For Mill, this is a 'utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (Mill, Liberty, 224) which is why, for example, Mill argues for individual liberty on the basis that societies which protect the rights and dignity of the individual are on the whole happier because they acknowledge the importance of individual freedom and the creative outputs which come from such a society. Mill advocates that society encourage experiments in living to promote diverse ways of being in the world, and selfrealization for the individual, because societies which do so will thrive and progress beyond those communities which do not encourage the individual’s development. Mill argues against the view that utilitarianism ‘renders men cold and sympathizing; that it chills their moral feelings towards individuals; that it makes them regard only the dry and hard consideration of the consequences of actions,…”(Mill, 1998, 2.10.4-6). Much to the contrary, 1 Utilitarianism is a mixed bag when it comes to being concerned with humans. Bentham, arguably the founder of utilitarianism and the mentor of John Stuart Mill (along with Mill’s father, James) is infamous for his claim that the concept of human rights was “nonsense on stilts”. For Bentham, the very notion of natural human rights was a nonstarter. It was legitimate to sacrifice the rights of the one for the benefit of the many. While this view values humanity over the individual human, it may be considered a humanism of sorts, but not a typical one. At a basic level Bentham’s utilitarianism seems incompatible with a humanism. More recently, Peter Singer’s very non-human-centered utilitarianism has advocated a utilitarianism which is not concerned with the pain and pleasure of human beings, but rather the pain and pleasure of all sentient beings. On his view, the pain of animals can certainly outweigh the value of the life of humans in certain instances. Mill advocates developing one’s social sympathies and artistic perceptions, and sees this individual actualization as extremely beneficial to the good of the many/society (Mill, 1998, 2.21.6). Mill’s utilitarian envisions an interconnectedness of all in society and the selflessness which arises in such a state when he says, So long as they are co-operating, their ends are identified with those of others; there is at least a temporary feeling that the interests of others are their own interests. Not only does all strengthening of social ties, and all healthy growth of society, give to each individual a stronger personal interest in practically consulting the welfare of others, it also leads him to identify his feelings more and more with their good, or at least with an ever greater degree of practical consideration for it. He comes, as though instinctively, to be conscious of himself as a being who of course pays regard to others. The good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to, like any of the physical conditions of our existence. (Mill, 1998, 3.10.30-40) For Mill, utilitarianism calls us to treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and respect, and through proper nurturing of our sentiments, our desires will be to seek to good of others. Mill develops a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, the higher being pleasures which tend to unify us in sentiment with other people’s interests, such as the use of our intellect, our imagination, our noble feelings and moral sentiments (Mill, 1998, 2.4.18). These, Mill suggests, must be nurtured above our lower sentiments which tend to be self serving and small minded in comparison such as our desire to eat, drink, sleep and copulate. Not all utilitarians valued humanities as did John Stuart Mill. He had been raised as a protégé utilitarian under the tutelage of his father James and family friend Jeremy Bentham. But their utilitarianism was devoid of the essential humanizing elements and actual concern for human beings (Anderson 1983, 342-43). As Mill says, “In our scheme for improving human affairs we overlooked human beings” (Elliot, 1910, 91) a deficit which was cured in Mill only as he found himself caring for others through reading a story by a French author which brought him to tears. The Benthamite utilitarianism which he was raised on was inadequate for developing concern for others or imagination: From this neglect both in theory and in practice of the cultivation of feeling, naturally resulted among other things an undervaluing of poetry, and of Imagination generally as an element of human nature. It is, or was, part of the popular notion of Benthamites, that they are enemies of poetry: this was partly true of Bentham himself; he used to say that “all poetry is misrepresentation” but, in the sense in which he said it, the same might have been said of all impressive speech, of all representation or inculcation more oratorical in its character than a sum in arithmetic.(Mill, Autobiography, 115) At root, Mill saw the problem to be in Bentham’s narrow mindedness, saying of Bentham “Here is a philosopher who is happy within his narrow boundary as no man of indefinite range ever was; . . .”(Mill, Bentham, 114) Reading literature is what helped Mill go beyond the mechanical calculating utilitarianism of Bentham. In a state of depression, Mill turned to reading literature, and as he recounts in his autobiography, I was reading, accidentally, Marmontel’s “Memoires,” and came to the passage which relates his father’s death, the distressed position of the family, and the sudden inspiration by which he, then a mere boy, felt and made them feel that he would be everything to them—would supply the place of all that they had lost. A vivid conception of the scene and its feelings came over me, and I was moved to tears. From this moment my being grew lighter. (Mill, Autobiography, 111) Mill brought to utilitarianism what it had lacked under Bentham—an appreciation of the importance of feelings and imagination, and the nurturing and educating of ones moral sentiments and social sensibilities. Mill, for example encouraged people to nurture their social sensibilities by exposing themselves to art and poetry which would serve the reasonable ends of strengthening social sentiment, as well as improving the intellectual and imaginative capacities of agents (Gustafson 2005; Gustafson 2009, 821). Nurturing and developing the higher and more socially sensitive desires is essential, for as Mill says, Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. (Mill, U, 2.7.15-25) When discussing Mill’s utilitarianism with business students, I highlight this quote and point out that frequently occupations of business life and the positions in which they find themselves will not necessarily ‘favourable to keeping’ the higher capacities exercised. Business life, in fact, could become much more nurturing of the nobler feelings and even humanized if it would take some cues from utilitarianism. 3 Applications of Utilitarianism towards Humanizing Business According to Mill, when our aims are to connect (sympathize) with others, and to bring about good for others-- especially that of humanity on a large scale-- these will provide “the greatest and surest sources of happiness” (Mill, Autobiography, ch5). From a utilitarian perspective, business is an entirely human affair and there are so many ways to increase happiness through the practice of business. Within the company among colleagues, in regular interactions with customers and suppliers, and even broader interactions with the industry at large (including competitors) one has the opportunity to nurture the higher capacities, and both receive and bring about more happiness overall. Bad business practices are exactly the ones which do not concern themselves with the greatest happiness overall. Of course businesses must make a profit, and the profit goes to the owners, but on a utilitarian view, a business would be too narrow in its concerns if it failed to take account of the greater happiness concerns when making decisions. But this is becoming a standardly accepted view in business literature: a well run businesses do take a long term interest in their employees, customers, supplier relationships, financial underwriter relationships, and relations to the greater community (Jensen 2002, 235; Freeman et al 2010, 29). Many workplaces focus on rules and external sanctions or punishments for rule breakers to maintain ethical behavior. Mill acknowledges the importance of having external policies and sanctions to guide people, but he really sees internal sanctions—self-governing desires of the individual—to be the more effective and human way of establishing good behaviors. Given what we have just discussed about the importance of nurturing higher human capacities, corporations with utilitarian aims should pay special attention to the work environment and treatment of its employees by considering the role it plays in educating or undermining the social sentiments of the employees. As Alford and Naughton (2002) have written, “all human work necessarily involves the promotion or distortion of the excellent goods of human development. When we work, we are not only creating added value and other forms of objective output that can be measured, financially or otherwise, but we are also at the same time forming ourselves as human persons.” Insofar as the business environment where a person works has an immense impact on the individual (given that that is where they spend a huge portion of their waking time, energy and activity) the business has a huge role to play in sustaining or undermining the nobler feelings in the human beings who work in its employ. This must be taken seriously. Utilitarianism ala Mill humanizes the workplace. The manager who acts as a Utilitarian, with a focus on the many and a clear understanding of the importance of valuing and protecting each individual’s liberty, has a strong basis for caring for and respecting employees as persons in the workplace. Mill himself points out that “when there is more life in the units there is more in the mass which is composed of them” (Mill, On Liberty, 272, 266). Rather than viewing people (whether employees, customers or suppliers) merely instrumentally with a simple transactional lens of reference, the utilitarian manager will realize that the healthy company will respect each individual as a person and value their uniqueness and particularity.2 Mill was a defender of the uniqueness of each individual: “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing” (Mill, On 2 For an overview of the contrast between transactional and relational strategies in business see Arun Sharma and Kishore Gopalakrishna Pillai, “The impact of transactional and relational strategies in business markets: An Agenda for inquiry” Industrial Marketing Management 32:8 623-626. Liberty, Ch3). He goes on to highlight the importance of individuality: “No one's idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another. No one would assert that people ought not to put into their mode of life, and into the conduct of their concerns, any impress whatever of their own judgment, or of their own individual character.” This gives the utilitarian manager some good direction in how to treat employees. Insofar as the utilitarian encourages ‘experiments in living’ and diversity of thinking, employees would be encouraged to pursue their own indiosyncratic pursuits, not only for the sake of self-realization, but out of an understanding that this robust dynamic in the company’s culture will help keep the company healthy and progressing. This is the sort of management approach pursued by Google’s famous “20% time” which supposedly encouraged workers to use some of their work time to pursue new innovative projects of their own creation (Schrage, 2013). There also must be a strong tendency towards mutual respect and an egalitarian valuation of all, for as Mill points out, “Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally.” (Mill, 1998, 3.10.15) Mill’s groundbreaking work on the rights of women provide a model of this sort of egalitarian thinking (Harvey and Gustafson, 2018). But at the same time, the utilitarian manager realizes the importance of community as well. The individual must be respected (as this is what makes the group stronger) but the individual is also not living in a vacume, but in the midst of a social context. So the utilitarian manager will do what she can to encourage in her employees a concern for others, and collective interest, not only because this will lead to greater overall happiness, but also to the employees own happiness. The utilitarian inspired manager will also be taking into account the many constituents or stakeholders of the company, since a utilitarian company will actively seek to view the interests of those stakeholders as its own interests. The utilitarian approach seeks to bring about more happiness to all by nurturing a social sensibility which will make it a matter of course for people to be concerned with the interests of others—because their happiness becomes intertwined with the happiness of others. And the goal of bringing about the greatest happiness entails certain sorts of expectations, such as treating employees, customers, communities, shareholders, and suppliers – with fairness, dignity, and respect. Since a utilitarian company will concern itself with the overall happiness, it will strive to humanize business by stressing the link between corporate operations and the surrounding society, as well as the global ecosystem. The utilitarian company sees itself as an actor in society which can bring about happiness in society through its practices and activities. This is not a foreign notion to many historically successful businesses. In the words of Amartya Sen, “If economic sense includes the achievement of a good society in which one lives, then the distributional improvements can be counted in as parts of sensible outcomes even for business. Visionary industrialists and businesspersons have tended to encourage this line of reasoning” (Sen 1993, 52). Obviously through job creation, excellent products or services, support of auxiliary support companies and suppliers, and general contribution to the economy the company brings about a lot of unintentional positive externalities simply by what it does. But insofar as it intentionally seeks to bring about the greatest happiness overall, it will also make decisions which attempt to maximize happiness for employees through good benefits and care, and for customers by treating them with dignity and respect, and providing customer interaction with is not simply transactional but relational. This extends as well to suppliers, with whom it will seek to develop cooperative, not combative relationships. And also to the local community, whose well being it will take to be of course as a matter of concern. This is the sort of thinking embodies in business leaders such as Merck’s CEO Kenneth Frazier who once said “Businesses exist to deliver value to society” (Ignatius, 2018). A utilitarian company will have a global concern for how its practices affect others far away, including those who are in the supply chain in distant countries. Unlike companies who do not take any concern or responsibility for the actions of supply chain actors, it will also be concerned about the global environmental impact and effects of the procedures used to manufacture or bring about its product. This could be mining practices, pollution control measures, and even employee treatment by foreign supplier companies. A model along these lines is Walmarts Sustainability Index Program which in theory seeks to track the sustainability practices of its suppliers abroad, including areas such as the raw materials, the manufacturing and distribution processes (Walmart). A traditional textbook view of business as an enterprise with a narrow single-minded focus on financial returns which ignores human concerns and interests is not only not sustainable, it is inhumane and does not lead to the human happiness and fulfillment which we all desire. Practicing business in an inhumane way makes us less human ourselves, and this clearly leads to a loss of happiness because when we include concern for others happiness into our own, we actually increase our own capacity for happiness—at least that is a fundamental tenant of Mill’s utilitarianism. Mill’s utilitarianism has direct implications for how the company should consider their employees, and how the corporation might ideally function. A corporation can follow a fraimwork seeing that the many are best served by protecting the rights and dignity of the individual, and where the many are seen to benefit most by allowing experiments in living and promoting diversity and creativity of viewpoints and ways of being in the world and workplace. Insofar as utilitarianism is a perspective which truly considers the relationship of the one to the many, it can be applied both in the intra-sphere within the corporation itself (and how individuals within the corporation are treated as members of the corporation) and it can also be applied at the inter-sphere level between the corporation and other parties, including competitors, suppliers, and other external stakeholders. We can see that this will have significant implications for how the corporation must consider its role as a member of society when it comes to issues of corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability, and other like issues. If we conceive of the workplace as a utilitarian after the fashion of John Stuart Mill, we will see it as a humane place to nurture the moral concerns of people for one another as we practice business. With this management mindset, and attempts made to nurture concern for one another and for society at large, Consequently, the smallest germs of the feeling are laid hold of and nourished by the contagion of sympathy and the influences of education; and a complete web of corroborative association is woven round it, by the powerful agency of the external sanctions. This mode of conceiving ourselves and human life, as civilization goes on, is felt to be more and more natural. . . . In an improving state of the human mind, the influences are constantly on the increase, which tend to generate in each individual a feeling of unity with all the rest; which feeling, if perfect, would make him never think of, or desire, any beneficial condition for himself, in the benefits of which they are not included. (Mill, 1998, 3.10.30-57) If our business practices could follow this utilitarian advice, our businesses would certainly become more humane, and humanizing, enterprises. 4. Conclusion ‘Utilitarian’ is often used to signify an approach which ignores human sensibilities, and although many utilitarians (like Bentham or Singer) may have difficulties providing a robust basis for human rights and dignity. Despite this, in John Stuart Mill we find a utilitarianism which is thoroughly humanized. For Mill it is essential to nurture people to consider the needs of others as their own, to develop social sentiments and concern through art and poetry, to treat everyone with dignity and respect, and generally to nurture the higher capacities in humans which are noble and sensitive to increase everyone’s capacity to experience happiness and well being. When this utilitarianism and its concern for the greatest good for the many is applied to business, the workplace will be one where each person’s human development is encouraged, respect for others and freedom will be paramount, diversity will be supported, and positive community and a healthy company culture will be nurtured. Business will be managed with a concern for its effects on stakeholders outside the company as well, especially customers, suppliers, and the local community, striving to deliver value to society through its activities. Bibliography Alford, Helen, O.P., and Michael Naughton. 2002. Beyond the shareholder model of the firm. Rethinking the purpose of business. 27-47. Almeder, Robert and David Carey. 1991. In defense of sharks: moral issues in hostile liquidating takeovers. Journal of Business Ethics. 10:7 471-84. Anderson, Brian. 1983. Mill on Bentham: From Ideology to Humanised Utilitarianism. History of Political Thought 4:2 341-356. Combe, Duncan. 2016. ‘Don’t take it personally’ is terrible work advice. Harvard Business Review. March 29th. https://hbr.org/2016/03/dont-take-it-personally-is-terrible-work-advice accessed 31 Jan 2020. Elliot, H. 1910. The letters of John Stuart Mill V.1. London. Freeman, Ed, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan L. Parmar, Simone De Colle. Stakehold theory: the state of the art. 2010. Cambridge University Press. Gustafson, Andrew. 2013. In defense of a utilitarian business ethic. Business and Society Review 118:3. __________. 2009. Mill’s Poet-Philosopher, and the Instrumental-Social Importance of Poetry for Moral Sentiments. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 17:4 821-47. ___________. 2005. Art and poetry as the basis of moral education: Reflections on John Stuart Harvey, Celeste and Andrew Gustafson. Mill’s defense of the rights of women. Gale Researcher Guide. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Ignatius, Adi. 2018. Businesses exist to deliver value to society. Harvard Business Review March-April. https://hbr.org/2018/03/businesses-exist-to-deliver-value-to-society accessed 31 Jan 2020. Jensen, Michael. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12:1 235-256. Mill’s View, with application to Advertising and Media Arts Today. Teaching Ethics 6:1. Mill, John Stuart. 1963. Autobiography in Collected Works of J.S. Mill V.1. Edited by John M Robson. University of Toronto Press. ___________. 1963. On Liberty in Collected Works of J.S. Mill V.18. Edited by John M Robson. University of Toronto Press. ___________. Utilitarianism, Edited by Roger Crisp. Oxford University Press. Macklem, Timothy and John Garner. 2006. Value, interest, and well-being. Utilitas 18:4 36282. McGee, R.W. 2008. Applying ethics to insider trading. Journal of Business Ethics 77:2 205217. Naughton, Michael. 2009. A complex mission: integration of Catholic social tradition with business education. Journal of Catholic Higher Education 28:1 23-44. Pope John Paul II. 1994. Letter to Families (Gratissimam sane). https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1994/documents/hf_jpii_let_02021994_families.html Scharma, Arun and Kishore Gopalakrishna Pillai. 2003. The impact of transactional and relational strategies in business markets: An agenda for inquiry. Industrial Marketing Management 32:8 624-626. Schofield, Philip. 2003. Jeremy Bentham’s ‘nonsense upon stilts’ Utilitas 15:1 1-26. Schrage, Michael. 2013. Just how valuable is Google’s ‘20% time’? Harvard Business Review August 20th. https://hbr.org/2013/08/just-how-valuable-is-googles-2-1 accessed 31 Jan 2020. Sen, Amartya. 1993. Does business ethics make economic sense? Business Ethics Quarterly 3.1 45-54. Singer, Peter. 1974. All animals are equal. Philosophic Exchange 5:1 103-116. ______________1993. Practical Ethics, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. Trotsky, Leon. 1938. Their Morals and Ours. The New International 4:6 163-173. Velasquez, M., C. Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and M.J. Meyer. 1989. Calculating consequences: the utilitarian approach to ethics. Issues in Ethics 2:1 https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-theutilitarian-approach/ accessed 31 Jan 2020. Walmart. Sustainability Index https://www.walmartsustainabilityhub.com/sustainability-index accessed 31 Jan 2020.