1. 1
London Graves
Ethics and Business
Ellis
Short Paper Assignment
Is Getting What You Want Morally Right?
A Pareto-Improvement is when at least one person gains something they prefer without
any other person getting less of what they want. A Pareto-Optimal situation occurs when no
other Pareto- improvements can be made and all parties are in the best position they can be in
without anyone getting less satisfaction. In a sense, a Pareto-Improvement is the means to
achieving a Pareto-Optimal situation (Hausman and McPherson, pg.65-66). Now the question I
ask you is: Is it morally right to get what you want, even if it means that everyone else will be
equally getting what they want? My answer to this is, to some extent yes, and to some extent
no. It all depends on the situation, and what the preferences are.
A situation where a Pareto-Improvement is moral would be: Say a person has a used car
they would like to sell for $4,000, and I would like to buy this car for less than $5,000. We can
come to a Pareto-Improvement of any amount between $4,000 and $5,000. This is an
improvement because both of us are in a win-win situation in terms of what we want. He will
either get the amount he wanted for the car or a little more, and I will get the car for what I
wanted to spend or a little less. This situation is also moral because I am not buying the car to
use it for anything else than to drive around town. It will not be used in any illegal way. Once

2. 2
we have come to an agreement on the sale of the car, it can become a Pareto-Optimal situation
if there is no other Pareto-Improvements that can be made in the dealing. We both win in this
situation, therefore everyone is happy with what they have. He will get the money from the
sale of the car, and I will have a used car to get me around town. This is great!
Now on the other hand you do not want everyone in the world getting everything they
want because, let’s be frank, some people would want some crazy things, such as illegal drugs,
top secret information that could cause harm to national security, etc. These things people are
wanting may be morally wrong and should not be marketed, and the actions of getting these
things could cause harm down the road to an innocent person. An example of an immoral
Pareto-Improvement and Pareto-Optimal situation would be the purchase of illegal drugs. Let’s
take the same example as above, only instead of making a deal for a car we are now making a
deal for illegal drugs. We may still reach a Pareto-Improvement if he wants the money more
than the drugs and I want the drugs more than my money, but are the preferences of what we
want moral? In this situation they are not. There is a reason that these drugs are illegal and
should not be marketed. Illegal drugs cause physical harm to the body of the person taking
them, and they have the potential to harm innocent by-standers. This is what happens when
you hear of a small child getting hit by a car while riding their bike because the driver was high
on illegal drugs. It would be immoral to take the risk of this happening or to risk your own
health all because you wanted to buy illegal drugs.
However, please do not confuse legality and morality as the same thing. These two
words are not synonyms. Something can be legal but immoral, while another thing could be
illegal but moral. Like the example used in class, lying to your wife may be legal, but to the

3. 3
individual it could be immoral. An example of the reverse could be, you park in a no parking
zone to help an elderly lady that had fallen. Illegal drugs would still be immoral to use or
purchase even if they are made legal because you are still risking your health and others safety.
Legality and morality should never be used as synonyms for these reasons.
To sum up everything, a Pareto-Improvement and a Pareto-Optimal situation can be
both moral situations, and immoral situations. Each situation needs to be treated as an
individual in order to determine if they are moral or not. Pareto-Improvements and a Pareto-
Optimal situations are not “one size fits all’ in the terms of morality, they can be both good and
bad.
References
Hausman, Daniel M. and Michael S. McPherson. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and
Public Policy. Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Text. Pages
64-72.