200 word response 1 reference/intext citation
Due 2/7/2025
Hicks
Respond to the post and explain how Utilitarianism works differently than Ethical Egoism and if Ethical Egoism would result in a different conclusion if the administrative agency (DBPR) is acting ethical or not in revoking the business license and liquor license under these facts.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their consequences, emphasizing the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). According to utilitarianism, an action is considered ethical if it maximizes overall happiness and minimizes harm. Act utilitarianism assesses each action’s direct impact, while rule utilitarianism considers whether the action aligns with rules that generally promote overall well-being. Applying utilitarianism to DBPR’s decision requires weighing the potential benefits and harms of revoking the business’s licenses.
From DBPR’s perspective, the agency may argue that its actions serve the public interest by enforcing laws that maintain “decency” in entertainment, particularly in venues accessible to minors. By shutting down the business, DBPR might claim that it is upholding moral standards and responding to community concerns. Additionally, the state may justify the action as part of broader efforts to regulate businesses and ensure compliance with laws governing public performances. However, these potential benefits must be weighed against the extensive harm caused by DBPR’s actions.
The revocation of the business’s licenses results in immediate economic harm, including job losses for employees and financial strain on the business owners. Additionally, this action sets a dangerous precedent for censorship of unpopular or minority expressions, creating a chilling effect on free speech. It disproportionately impacts LGBTQ+ communities, reinforcing social discrimination and marginalization. The enforcement also imposes legal costs on both the business and taxpayers, as Florida will likely face prolonged litigation, given that similar laws have already been struck down in federal court. Since DBPR’s action does not provide significant societal benefits and instead results in economic, social, and legal harm, the decision fails the utilitarian test. The negative consequences outweigh any perceived benefits, making DBPR’s actions unethical from a utilitarian perspective.
Thus, applying utilitarianism, in my opinion, DBPR’s enforcement is morally unjustified, as it causes more harm than good. The revocation of business licenses suppresses free expression, undermines economic stability, and disproportionately harms marginalized communities without a compelling public benefit. The principle of maximizing happiness and minimizing harm suggests that allowing the business to operate freely would result in a greater overall benefit to society.
