If the clothing company manages to fulfill these two things then as a result it will reach at some point value maximization. Therefore, we can say that the goal is accomplished- value maximization and happy customers because they receive what they want, in other words, the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Some may argue that if the clothes were for free, people would be more happy and satisfied. But that would be only in the short-term. If the clothes were for free the company would go bankrupt in only a few months, maybe even weeks. Therefore the satisfaction of the consumers of these clothes will be very short, which will lead to the opposite of the Utilitarianism maxim, the least happiness to the fewest number of people. There is another scenario in which profit and value maximizations are achieved through causing pain and dissatisfaction which is in contrast with the idea of Utilitarianism ethics. Clear example for this is child labor. Many factories use underage people in order to achieve profit maximization by reducing the expenses on salaries. But this is not a sufficient argument to conclude that business and Utilitarianism ethics are in contrast. To summarize, business utilitarianism ethics is not an oxymoron. There are cases in which it is an oxymoron but the fact that there are cases in which business doesn't contradict with Utilitarianism theory, is sufficient to conclude that profit maximization and value maximization can be accomplished by the rules and maxims of this ethical approach.
In contrast to Utilitarianism, Kant's theory does not follow the idea of consequentialism but rather of the motivation behind one's actions. According to Kantianism "we have the capacity to legislate the moral law"2. In other words people are autonomous, which means that we create our own rules, we can self-legislate. Immanuel Kant distinguishes two types of imperatives in his theory.
