Rule Utilitarianism?

Question

How would you evaluate this situation from the position of a rule utilitarianist? You work for a new pharmaceutical company specializing in medications for asthma. Your boss asks you to falsify information on a report to the government, just this once. He points out that, if you do not, the company is likely to be forced to close, putting you and the other twenty-three

employees out of work. What should you do?

Answer 1

Who's utility are you speaking of?  

Since you asked no moral question I believe that the correct answer is to do what gets the job done.  

Therefore, you must study the reasoning of the person doing the action of falsifying the information.  What does he want to happen?  

When there is a right and a wrong path to choose from then there is never justification for choosing the wrong one.  

This might be better asked if one should be selfish or caring, morally abated or morally sound, deceitful or just.

Think of all those that would be harmed if the modified information caused a death, or many deaths, or long, pain filled lives.

Would you want one of those people to be you or ones you love?  

If you still need an answer and you are looking to justify an immoral and perhaps illegal act the please start with one word: sociopath.

Answer 2

It depends a lot on what is the outcome of that report and on other factors involved.

If we consider only the factors you have laid before us, then yes, falsifying the report would absolutely be the best thing to do for an act utilitarian.  It benefits twenty-three people, keeping them gainfully employed.

On the other hand, if this report is a final product report and will result in perhaps a faulty medication being released to the public, then it could perhaps threaten thousands of people.  Enough to make any utilitarian flinch!  Still, even then you might look at the other side... if the public has a choice between a faulty medication and none at all, even a faulty one might be better (few utilitarians would have trouble testing out experimental meds on those who have no better options).

And what about the investors?  Few companies have enough money to pay for pharmaceutical research on their own.  If you drag out a poor process that will throw good money after bad, you may have slightly harmed many, many people.  On the other hand, if your company is on the verge of a breakthrough that will never happen if it's cancelled, then falsifying the report could preserve the investment of all those people.

As you can see, these other considerations can easily swamp out the mere twenty-three employees of the company itself.  But we would need more information to include them in our ethical calculus.  Hope that helps!

Answer 3

well from an AR standed dont just think of the people you know, think of the harm that could be done to people by not following all the proper rules on a pharmaceutical, history dosent seam to look all that favorably on people that send out toxic meds, if your boss srewed up and got you all laid off, how hard could it be to get a new job, heck your in pharma, spend a few weekneds (to 6 months) picking up a few bio-tech tricks and start making more money some place else,

how much joy will a good nights sleep bring you