Utilitarian Ethics: Definition, Theory, Examples & Criticism

Summary 

Among the areas where decision-makers should apply the utilitarian approach above all else is in public finance. Taxpayer dollars should create the best utility for the public. Under Jeremy Bentham’s version of utilitarianism, utility means that public money should bring the greatest pleasure for the majority while visiting the least pain (Crimmins, 2019) . The article Rein (2015) addresses a public finance expenditure issue that raises an interesting ethical dilemma. The issue involves the subsidization of housing for individuals whose annual income reflects that they are already affluent. In some of the extreme cases, the taxpayer money subsidizes rent for residents who are making a fortune in the tenant’s own real estate enterprises (Rein, 2015). The argument made by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), combines a deontological approach and a utilitarian one. Simply the state argues both that it does not have a choice and contemporaneously, the decision is for the good of the nation. The instant essay evaluates the decision made by HUD by assessing both sides of the argument primarily based on Bentham’s Utilitarianism. Over and above seeking to understand if the HUD is right or wrong, the paper will also seek to glean lessons about the complicated process that policymakers undergo in the practical decision-making. Whereas theoretically, right and wrong may seem like an easy choice, when put in practice, almost all major decisions create an ethical dilemma with no simple or straightforward solution.

Background Information 

The selected article Rein (2015) addresses the issue of subsidized public housing and its use by affluent Americans. The topic is important because the subsidization of public housing comes from taxpayer money. There are hundreds of thousands of needy Americans awaiting public housing opportunities. Contemporaneously, tens of thousands of Americans who can afford housing at commercial costs live under subsidized housing. The selection of this article for evaluation under Bentham’s utilitarianism lies in the ethical dilemma it creates. On the one hand, it is absurd for the HUD to make American taxpayers subsidize rent for tens of thousands of affluent families. These families are capable of paying standard rent for themselves and even help assist in subsidizing housing for the hundreds of thousands of others who are in need. On the other hand, the numbers above are not mere statistics but real American families with school-going children, jobs, and family ties. Having them move from their homes may visit wanton complications in their lives, which may drive them back to the poverty they worked so hard to escape. It is this ethical dilemma that infirmed the selection of the instant article for evaluation. The basis for the evaluation is if the HUD is making the best use of the utility that is taxpayer money in the instant scenario.

The Story Statement 

Rein (2015) is a news article about a report by a watchdog within the HUD, regarding the presence of affluent Americans in public housing. According to the report, US taxpayers spend about US$ 104 million to subsidize the stay of these affluent families in public housing. Some of the important examples of the families included in Rein (2015) are a New York family with an annual income of US$ 497,911 and another than has its own real estate enterprise that makes $790,500 annually. In another interesting case from Oxford, Nebraska, a tenant with assets worth over US 1.6 million only pays US$ 300 in monthly rent! These are among families that make too much money to live in public housing but due to loopholes in the law, they still live under taxpayer subsidy. In the interim, over 300,000 needy families remain on waiting lists for subsidized public housing (Rein, 2015).

The article then proceeds to give the HUD’s combination of an excuse and a set of explanations for the situation. The excuse is deontological in nature and argues that the HUD has no choice in the matter. As per the excuse, the law sets the maximum annual earning for admission of tenants into public housing. However, there is no indication of the maximum earnings for remaining in public housing. Once the HUD allows a tenant into public housing, it cannot demand that the tenant lives, no matter how affluent the tenant gets. When it comes to actual explanations, the HUD has two main ones. The first is that asking affluent tenants to leave subsidized public housing would be counterproductive from a macroeconomic perspective. The tenants may not be able to find other places to live near their current jobs or their children’s schools (Rein, 2015). By asking them to leave, the HUD will be propagating poverty on those who have, through hard work managed to escape from its throes. HUD’s second explanation is that it is necessary to keep the affluent in public housing as they serve as role models for the poor who make the bulk of public housing residents.

The Analysis Statement 

The topic area for the instant case study analysis is utilitarianism generally but more specifically as defined by Jeremy Bentham. After applying utilitarianism as defined above to the case study, it is evident that the HUD has to the largest extent failed but also succeeded to a limited extent. Beginning with the failure, the HUD has applied taxpayer dollars in subsidizing housing for a minority affluent when there is a majority poor who need subsidized housing. The idea of subsidization should not be permanent. Social welfare should be conveyor belt that helps the poor overcome their immediate issues, and eventually, poverty itself (Dorfman, 2016). When the poor overcome their immediate problems and gain prominent, they should get out of the social welfare conveyor belt for the next round of the poor. In this case, tens of thousands on the conveyor belt have attained affluence. They should give way to the hundreds of thousands in need of subsidized housing. The correct use of the program may enable most of the poor overcome poverty hence eliminating homelessness. The HUD is perpetrating homelessness by allowing the affluent to take housing units meant for the poor. The argument that asking the tenants to live may cause some to slide back to poverty is an unacceptable risk under utilitarianism. However, the argument that the affluent are effective role models for the millions currently in subsidized housing does make sense under utilitarianism. This fact provides a limited justification for HUD’s decision.

Conclusion and Reflection 

Based on the evaluation under Bentham’s utilitarianism as outlined above, it is evident that the HUD has failed to make the right decision. The HUD has retained affluent families in subsidized housing while hundreds of thousands of poor families await opportunities to stay in the units. However, the argument about the affluent playing acting as role models provides limited justification. In an interesting twist, the HUD relies on a legal loophole by arguing that there is no set earnings upper limit for tenants. This argument assumes that even if a subsidized housing tenant won the lottery, the law allows the tenant to remain in public housing at the expense of the poor who need the houses the most. The most important lesson from the evaluation above is how unfortunate it would be if policymakers followed general provisions blindly without considering its impact on the community. The HUD, a federal agency led by a US cabinet member, the HUD Secretary hid behind a policy it is capable of amending through a change of policy. Due to the erroneous policy, hundreds of thousands of the poorest Americans seek public housing while millionaires live in the same public houses set apart for the poor. The issue above calls for the application of philosophical theory in policymaking to prevent blind adherence to erroneous policy.

References

Crimmins, J. E. (2019, January 28). Jeremy Bentham. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/ . 

Dorfman, J. (2016, October 17). Welfare Offers Short-Term Help And Long-Term Poverty, Thanks To Asset Tests. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/10/13/welfare-offers-short-term-help-and-long-term-poverty/#2bdc36c332cd .

Rein, L. (2015). A family in public housing makes $498,000 a year. And HUD wants tenants like this to stay . [online] Available at: https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-low-income-housing-abuse-20150818-story.html.