Critisism for Rule and Act Utilitarianism

“Utilitarianism is the view that the supreme principle of morality is to act so as to produce as much happiness as possible, each person counting equally” (Mill, 114). By ‘happiness’, this includes anything that is pleasurable and free of pain. Simply put, utilitarianism is the theory that an action is right, as long as it produces the greatest good for the most number of people (Peetush). The central point to this theory is that one must consider every consequence before taking any action. There are two classical forms of utilitarianism; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. “Rule utilitarianism is the idea that 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 than any available alternative” (Pojman, 127). Take for instance, stopping at a red light. According to rule utilitarianism, stopping at a red light is an act required by a rule, in this case the law, which would also lead to greater utility for society because it prevents accidents from happening and having to wait in traffic, being late, etc. On the other hand, act utilitarianism assumes “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman, 126). Both rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism have been criticised in several different aspects. It has been said that “the act-utilitarianism rule, to do the act that maximizes utility, is too general for most purposes” (Pojman, 127). Alongside, “an often debated question in ethics is whether rule utilitarianism is a consistent version of utilitarianism” (Pojman, 127). The purpose of this paper will be to demonstrate how the arguments supporting utilitarianism are no...

... middle of paper ...

...patible because utilitarians then consider greatly unjust acts as morally right, which is not the case.

In conclusion, after looking at the objections and considering every point of the utilitarian methodology, it is safe to say that the arguments for it are not very strong. “[Utilitarianism] results from the proceeding considerations that there is in reality nothing desired except happiness” (Mill, 115). However, it is hard to even define happiness making the approach that much more difficult to follow. All in all, the main reasons to reject utilitarianism are as follows: utilitarianism is not always feasible, it only takes into account end goals, conflicts with an individual’s integrity, and is incompatible with justice. For these reasons, individuals should enthuse utilitarians to reject the idea that all actions are right as long as it is for the greater good.