Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.
Although both an act-utilitarian and a rule-utilitarian, both defend the utilitarianism main claim of us doing “what is optimific. [Meaning] we must maximize overall well-being,” (FE, 138). The main claim of each form is different.
…show more content…
According “to act utilitarianism, acts are right just because they maximize the overall amount of well-being in the world,” (FE, 122).
An act utilitarian will view the consequences of a single action, and not the consequences of the big picture. For example, they would view the consequences of a single action of stealing something, and not the principle of stealing in general. Act utilitarian will “make the rightness of an action depend on all of its results, no matter how long after the action they occur,” (FE, 123). This requires that we have moral knowledge in order to determine if our actions will be optimific, depending on the possible consequences of the action. Utilitarians make the claim that we should use actual results from an action, and not the expected results; to determine if the action is optimific. Most act-utilitarians reject using expected results, because it “does not condemn actions that are reasonably expected to be optimific. “It has two problems…first it will…require actions that turn out to have disastrous results, when other options would have produced much better outcome,” (FE, 125). However, “some actions are expected to turn out badly, but end up with surprisingly good …show more content…
results,” (FE, 125). For rule-utilitarian their main claim is “that an action is morally right just because it is required by an optimific social rule, (FE, 154). In order to determine what is an optimific social rule, there is three basic steps to follow. The first step is to “carefully describe the rule…the second is too imagine what a society would be like if just about everybody endorsed the rule… and lastly, ask this question: will that society be better off with this rule than with any competing rule?,” (FE, 154). With knowing the main differences between the two forms of utilitarianism, when given a scenario we can see how they could possibly pick different sides of the scenario.
Given the following scenario, that you are a doctor in an oncology ward in a major city that is strapped for financial and material resources. One evening, two patients are admitted to the hospital. One patient is suffering from a seemingly incurable form of cancer. She is an exemplary genetics researcher, who is launching a multi-year research project on malaria. You know that there is an experimental drug that you could prescribe to her that may help, but that there are significant risks to her health in trying this new medication on her. The second patient seemed to be well on his way to recovering his own bout with cancer, but this recent admission to the hospital makes his recovery less certain. You consider that he will likely recover if he receives the experimental drug and that he is unlikely to recover without the drug. He is an unsuccessful artist, has a family and regularly contributes large amounts of money to local charities. The only problem is that you have only one dose of the drug in the hospital. To obtain more doses, you would have to go through a multi-year approval process with the researchers who are testing the drug on a select group of patients. No one else has access to the experimental drug, and the researchers will not allow any new patients (besides the one that you choose) to
participate in their study. Base off the definition of act-utilitarian is going to choose the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian is going to choose the female patient. The act-utilitarian is going to pick the unsuccessful artist, who will likely recover if he receives the experimental drug; versus picking the exemplary genetics researcher, because of impartiality, and maximizing goodness. One strengthen of act-utilitarianism is that it is a doctrine of impartiality, “it tells us that the welfare of each person is equally morally valuable. Whether rich or poor, …male or female,… your well-being is just as important as anyone else,” (FE, 126). With impartiality we are able to eliminate the fact that the female patient is an exemplary genetic researcher, and is wealthier than the unsuccessful artist male patient; and focus on helping two patients who have cancer. Picking the male patient over the female patient will “produce the greatest overall balance of happiness over misery,” (FE, 122). Base off the scenario there are significant risks to her health if she receives the drug, while the male patient well likely recover if he receives the experimental drug. It also states that the female is battling an incurable form of cancer, while the male patient is on his way to recovering his own bout with cancer. The male patient would produce the overall balance of happiness over misery, because with the drug he is more likely to live, and possibly fund the multi-year research since he contributes large amounts of money to local businesses. This is maximizing goodness, because not only is he able to live longer and recover from cancer, but he will also be able to fund future experiments, and help test the drug on more patients. In the female patient case, more misery would be produce, than happiness. Due to the fact that her cancer is an incurable form of cancer, and if she was to receive the drug it would likely cause significant risks to her health. This experimental drug could cause greater harm to her, because it can worsen her condition. Misery would also be produced, because an exemplary genetic researcher would be lost, and so would her possibly finding a cure for malaria. The rule-utilitarian is going to ask us to imagine a society where it would be more beneficial to have either an unsuccessful artist living or to have an exemplary genetics researcher live. The society would likely choose the exemplary genetics researcher. Unlike act-utilitarianism “it supports our belief that morality permits a certain degree of partiality, because policies that allow us to give preference to…fellow citizens [who] be highly beneficial,” (FE, 155). Since the female patient is an exemplary genetics researcher, and is in the process of launching a multi-year research project on malaria; it would benefit the society better, than that in which the unsuccessful artist could. The rule-utilitarian is going to select the female patient, because “optimific social rules will be ones that both increase happiness and respect rights,” (FE, 155). The female patient could put out an experimental drug herself that can have the cure for malaria, and society would be happy, because we would now have a cure for malaria, and also a possible drug that can treat others that have the same from of once incurable cancer, that she has. This would produce less deaths from these diseases. Both act-utilitarianism and rule- utilitarianism set out to provide the greatest amount of happiness in the world. Had more background information on both patients had been given, then we could possibly see a change in the selection that both a rule-utilitarian would make, and the act-utilitarian as well. Until the patients are given the experimental drug, and the actual results are known, can we surly justify it the action was optimific.
According to the book Shafer Landau an act utilitarianism is “the version of act consequentialism that says that only well-being is intrinsically valuable, and so says that an act is morally right just because it maximizes overall well-being” (Shafer Landau, G1). In the other words, it means that the act that produces the maximum of the happiness at that time than any other act. Another similar example of this act for the better understanding is, if I have a friend and being with her gives me the most happiness than being with any other friends at that time, but it does not give the same happiness to her and I am unaware about it at that time then it’s also defines as an act utilitarian. It is act utilitarian because I am still getting the most happiness at that time.
In other words, it means an action is only right if and only if and because the action will produce at least the maximizing outcome when compared to performing a different action at that time. Act utilitarianism is expressed only by actions with pleasurable results and the avoidance of any actions consequences that revolve around pain. In order to thoroughly understand act utilitarianism there are five fundamental elements that outline the significance of this theory. First, it is direct; the action is right or wrong due to the actual action’s consequences. Second, it follows a maximizing version of right conduct and yields the greatest value of right action. Next, it encompasses a welfarist theory and is universalist, meaning that all individuals will be considered when deciding the actions outcome. Lastly, it follows an impartialist model; all persons are equal when an action results in the same size benefit or loss to an
Act-Utilitarianism is the thesis that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman 110). One conspicuous problem with the thesis is that it suggests that correct moral actions will often clash with our intuitions about basic moral norms. For example, Pojman refers to Richard Brandt’s criticism in which he points out that the act-utilitarian seems to be committed to helping the needy above one’s own family, repaying debts only if there is no better use for the money, and ending the lives of those who are a drain on others (Pojman 110). Rule-Utilitarianism is a response to this objection and an attempt to formulate a more plausible conception of the theory. Pojman’s definition is: “An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society tha...
... believe that if the intent of the agent's actions is to try to maximize the greater good or to create the greatest net utility possible, then it does not matter whether or not one is successful in carrying out his/her chosen act. Lastly, questions of morality and whether what one is doing in upholding the utilitarian concepts is "right" hold no ground. This is because utilitarianism clearly states that if the act in question maximizes the net utility, without causing harm or pain to all considered, the real moral question becomes, "Wouldn't you be morally wrong in not carrying out said act?"
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
...ough its own capacity as a theory of both decision making and moral judgement, and by default- as act-utilitarianism has been proved too demanding and often immoral by our common sense intuition- I conclude that rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
The case under study is of the surgeon who has to decide killing of a normal, but unjust person for the sake of saving five sick people. An act utilitarian in this case would be considering every probable consequences of sacrificing the sixth normal patient while on the other hand, a rule utilitarian will possibly look for the consequences associated with performing such an operation every time a situation like thos would arise. One of the potential rules would claim that: whenever any surgeon can kill one healthy person for the basic purpose of transplanting his organs to save more than one person who actually needs them, then he can surely do it.
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
A natural way to see whether an act is the right thing to do (or the wrong thing to do) is to look at its results, or consequences. Utilitarianism argues that, given a set of choices, the act we should choose is that which produces the best results for the greatest number affected by that choice.
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the consequences of a person’s action to determine if their actions are right or wrong (Slote 34). According to the theory, a morally right act is one that has more good outcomes than bad ones. In this ethical theory, the end justifies the means; hence, it argues that people should first determine the good and bad consequences of actions before they do them. After determining the total outcomes, it is important to investigate whether the total good consequences are more. If the good ones outweigh the bad ones, then that action is morally right, but if it is the reverse, then the action is morally wrong.
People find pleasure in others pain, people can wrongfully but sincerely decide that a two-minute pleasure outweighs the stable happiness they could’ve had for the next several years, and is the satisfaction of desire what brings about true happiness? These questions and variances are real and without definite answer, yet the consequentialist assumes more than is there and ignores the ever important value of the individual’s preference towards specific pleasures and pains. However, even among the consequential community there is a heavy disagreement about just what and what not a consequentialist is to base judgments from, excluding the obvious that is it should be action-based. Act consequentialism looks at every single moral choice anew. In a situation where an extremely serious moral choice is bound to be made, individuals may well think long about the consequences of particular moral choices in this way. Such deliberate thought is hugely useful for such occurrences, but when applied to the much more trivial choices that make up the large majority or our days and weeks actually serves as a deterrent from being a decisive human and, thus leads to a less valuable life: If these act consequentialists were everywhere, individuals would feel morally obligated to research the consequences of their actions before they take them to make an