MOTIVES BE DAMNED

Many public relations approaches have the appearance of being utilitarian in nature. Consider the following case in light of its utilitarian aspects.

A quarter of a century ago, a certain (very large) international public relations firm took on the Argentine government as a client. During the late 1970s, Argentina was not a nice place to live if you were opposed in any way to the government. A military junta had seized power in 1976. It has been reported that in the first eight months after the coup, Amnesty International conducted an investigation and figured out that thousands of people were being held as political prisoners and that torture was routine and pervasive. This was President Rafael Videla's creation and the situation that existed when his government's Ministry of the Economy hired a certain North American-based PR firm to stimulate investment in this country whose reputation had, not surprisingly, begun to falter in the eyes of the world. In other words, they needed to shine up the image so that Argentina could borrow money on the world markets and sell their products. Using standard, modern North American ethical standards, is there any way to justify taking on such a client?

Yes, there is. That does not make it right or wrong, it just makes it justifiable ”and here's how.

Arguably an oversimplification, but if we define the principle of utility by saying that you ought to strive for the greatest good for the greatest number, and further, that the end justifies the means, there is a moral rationale for the decision to represent this client. The PR agency could quite justifiably suggest that by representing this government, which seemed to represent evil incarnate, at least to many people throughout the world, and many of whose policies were counter to what we believe to be ˜right in terms of human rights, their work in supporting economic growth might, in the long term , be the greater good for the greatest number of people. It might help to get those begging children off the streets by putting their families to work, for example. Indeed, for a utilitarian ethicist, the motivation behind any particular decision is not what's important ”only the outcome. If the PR agency in our case decided to take the case mostly for the money, justifying representation of the client by suggesting the good that will come, then they're off the hook ”at least to other utilitarians. Their motives would not be questioned in the strict application of this principle, even if they were purely selfish. The general outcomes would balance this self-interest. It's not quite that simple, though.

Just as with the singular application of any ethical principle on its own, the application of this principle of utility has problems as well. Make no mistake, during his life and even now, although Mills' principle is included in probably every ethics text you might read, his views have been attacked again and again.