More handpicked essays just for you.
Criticisms of consequentialism
Similarities and differences between act and rule utilitarianism essay
Criticisms of consequentialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Is rule-utilitarianism preferable to act-utilitarianism? Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism is a direct form of consequentialism in that its principles are applied directly to ones actions under particular circumstances and the action is then judged as morally permissible or impermissible based solely on whether your action achieved or failed to maximise pleasure. In contrast, rule-utilitarianism is considered indirect because your actions are carried out according to a set of accepted moral rules of which compliance with which would ensure maximum aggregate good. Whether an action is morally permissible or impermissible is judged on your adherence to the agreed set of moral rules as opposed to the direct outcome of your actions. It would seem already that rule-utilitaria... ... middle of paper ... ...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. Works Cited Driver, J. 2009. The History of Utilitarianism. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JerBen [Accessed: 14 Mar 2014]. Hooker, B. 2003. Rule Consequentialism. Read in: Shafer-Landau, R. 2013. Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. Hooker, B. 2003. Rule Consequentialism. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/ [Accessed: 14 Mar 2014]. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2003. Consequentialism. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ [Accessed: 14 Mar 2014].
Nielsen’s next major premise is that if a consequentialist is faced with a decision from which the overall value of the consequences is unclear, then consequentialism should yield to the relevant deontological rule. That is to say, if it is possible that violating a deontological rule to bring about greater good may l...
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
It can be concluded that rule utilitarianism means that an act is moral permissible if such an act conforms to a moral rule that maximises utility. Rule utilitarianism dictates that one should choose saving the life of the innocent as there is a moral rule that urges us to protect the interests of children and such a moral rule leads to utility. Although, this theory is subject to numerous of criticisms, it is still quite appealing to solving the Trolley Car Problem and any other moral-ethical
The problem with Utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that Utilitarianism is so fixated on generating the most happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute the result is essentially eradicated. In so doing, the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting the general welfare is brought about, which in turn, renders Utilitarianism an inadequate ethical
U T I L I T A R I A N I S M. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism%20notes.htm
One definition of utilitarianism in general highlights the idea that an action is considered morally right or wrong depending on their results of the action (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The idea highlights that the end results are the only factor that truly matter in the decision of whether or not an action is morally right or wrong(“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Utilitarianism can be split into two more detailed perspectives which are act and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism focus is on an individual case’s outcome (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Rule Utilitarianism looks at the action and its outcome in general (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Jeremy Bentham is associated with utilitarianism and his view of hedonism which is in response to the question of what is considered good in the world (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Hedonism focuses on pleasure or happiness as being the only good (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Pleasure and happiness are considered goods themselves since compared to friends or families that can produce such valuables as pleasure and happiness (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). This means that the gift of happiness one that cannot produce anything that would be of greater value. The views associated with hedonism have been rejected in cases since they only considered the
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Throughout this paper I will argue between Mil (Utilitarianism) and Held (Care Ethics). Mil is a British Philosopher well known for his ethical and political work and Held is an American Feminist and Moral Philosopher. After reading this essay you will have a good view on what Utilitarianism and Care Ethics is and also what my concluding position is.
As mentioned earlier, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner by which they formulate happiness and assess the morality associated with such actions. According to Smart, “act utilitarianism makes the morality of actions depend entirely on their results, requiring us always to do that action, among all available to us at the time, which will yield the greatest overall happiness” (Shafer Landau, pg. 92). More simply, if we choose the par...
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.
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
The moral philosophy of Utilitarianism includes a calculation of happiness, in which actions are considered to be good if they produce happiness and evil if they produce pain. Utilitarianism also considers at what extent happiness can be created not just for an individual, but also others whom may be affected. By following a Utilitarian moral philosophy, a person can assure the best possible situation for the most amounts of people affected by every action they make. Utilitarianism is the centered on happiness, as a concept, and tries to promote the idea. The vision here is that if all people seek happiness, it will result in the happiness for all humans and animals. In the case that one does not produce happiness, one should also strive to reduce unhappiness. As Utilitarianism is wholly focused on the utility of a person’s actions, it is called a “consequentialist” theory. I argue that Utilitarianism is the best moral philosophy to follow due to its versatility, ethicality, and production of happiness for all.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which determining the rightness or wrongness of action or decision is based on determining whether the greatest benefit or happiness will be provided in the highest or greatest number of population. This simply means that action or decision must be based on the highest amount or number of beneficiary (Martineau, 2006). However, this ethical theory has two major types. First is the “act utilitarianism” and second is the “rule utilitarianism.” Act utilitarianism specifically adh...
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.
There are two versions of utilitarianism, act and rule utilitarianism. Although they oppose each other, they are consistent with the utilitarian principle that was just explained. Act utilitarianism holds that what is believed to be morally right or wrong is based on consequence. When deciding which action results in the most good, it is dependent on whomever or whatever will benefit the most from it. Then, rule utilitarianism is dependent on moral rules. It is a more definite theory because an action can be decided as morally right or wrong dependent on the consequence of the moral rule. Those that follow this ve...