Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is rule utilitarianism an improvement of act utilitarianism
Is rule utilitarianism an improvement of act utilitarianism
Compare act and rule utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
On page 82 of MP, Barcalow describes Act-Utilitarianism as “only the act that will, under the circumstances, produce the greatest increase in total well-being (or the smallest decrease in total well-being) is morally right.” Meaning that an Act-Utilitarian operates under one principle: one should only ever do, that is, through action, what either ends with maximum increase or minimum decrease in well-being. Another faction of Utilitarianism discerns itself as Rule-Utilitarianism. On page 90 of MP, Barcalow describes Rule-Utilitarianism as collection of moral rules that are correct moral rules because they “produce more total well-being if followed than if they’re not followed.” Meaning that for a Rule-Utilitarian theft is immoral because it produces less total well-being. However, thievery would be permitted, as a rule, if somehow it produced more total well-being. On page 85 of MP, Barcalow says Act-Utilitarianism cannot be applied to “determine the moral rightness or wrongness of kinds of actions.” The Act-Utilitarian …show more content…
Another advantage Rule-Utilitarianism holds over Act-Utilitarianism is that it doesn’t throw past obligations for the sake of increasing total well-being, nor does it sacrifice one’s happiness over another’s like Act-Utilitarianism does. Rule-Utilitarianism allows certain freedoms in moral convictions that would allow us to fully appreciate life, whilst continuing to live a moral life when faced with ethical dilemmas. For example, a Rule-Utilitarian can think that if everyone was to indulge in killing each other whenever given offence, then total well-being would decrease exponentially. Hence, murder is immoral for the Rule-Utilitarian. In contrast, the Act-Utilitarian would permit murder, or even his or her own death if it increased total
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
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
In general, the term utilitarianism can be defined as the ethical or right action is the one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, some people suggest that rightness or wrongness is determine by numbers that are total the positives and the negatives outcome of an action or the one that produces the highest score of positives or negatives that is the most ethical, or right, thing to do (Neher, W. W. Sandin, P.J., 2007, p. 61).
rule utilitarianism also conflicts with justice and morality. Utility is a guide to choosing rules, not action. You must measure the consequences of an action as if they were a rule repeated many times in the same situation. Then choose which of those rules promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Say, for example if everyone were to lie such that it became a rule it should be acceptable as long as it results in greater utility. This can also be applied to the rape in war example; if it was done enough times then it is okay as long as the war ends and future pain are spared. Again this response requires that people accept such things like, raping women and murdering innocent people for the sake of winning a battle, as right in
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.
In utilitarianism the common goal is to create the most happiness for the most amount of people. Mills definition of the Greatest Happiness Principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (540) If this principle is the case then as a utilitarian your actions of good should promote the most happiness. This way of thinking can really produce some wrong answers and actions to moral questions. For example, say you and your family are starving and in need of food. The only possible way to get food would be to steal it. In general society finds it morally wrong to steal under any circumstances. But as utilitarian you have to ask, would my actions of stealing food promote the most happiness for the most people. You need to take into account the people you are making happy and the people you are hurting. On one hand, you would be promoting happiness for you and your and entire family, and on the other hand, you would be hurting the storeowner by stealing some of his revenue. Utilitarian ideas tell you that you should steal the food because your actions are promoting happiness and the absence of pain for the least amount of people. There are other examples I found when doing some research like doctors going against morals to save more sick people by letting one healthy person die
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
Personally, I think that neither theory is entirely right or entirely wrong. The flaw I see in act utilitarianism is that if you are always doing everything you can in every situation imaginable to improve well-being of everyone, then you aren’t really living life, you’re simply doing a job every moment of your life. Even sleeping could somehow not benefit the well-being of everyone, if the better option is to stay awake and perform more well-being improving tasks. The flaw I see in rule consequentialism is that, in the world of radical Muslims, it is okay to commit suicide and murder, because that’s the accepted norm of their small society, even though it is due to their religious beliefs. That, to me, does not make it right. However, I would say as a general rule, rule consequentialism seems to satisfy my mind more than act utilitarianism.
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
One of the major players in ethical theories has long been the concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that in general the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action is directly related to the utility of that action. Utility is more specifically defined as a measure of the goodness or badness of the consequences of an action (see quote by Mill above). For the purposes of this paper, Utility will be considered to be the tendency to produce happiness. There are two types of Utilitarianism; these are “act” and “rule”. An act utilitarian uses thought processes associated with utilitarianism (i.e. the principle of utility) to make all decisions, this requires a lot of thought and careful calculation. For example, an act utilitarian deciding from a list of possible day trips would sit down and calculate out the utility of each possible decision before coming to a conclusion as to which one was preferable. Contrary to an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian uses the principles of utility to create a set of rules by which they live. Rule utilitarians are not incapable of calculating a decision; they just do not see a need to do it all the time. For example, a rule utilitarian might have some rules like this: in general do not kill, in general do not steal, in general do not lie; but if they found a situation that might except the rule they would do the cal...
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...
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
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...
Utilitarianism is defined as a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil. There are two major types of utilitarianism: act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism asserts that the morally right action is the one that directly produces the most favorable balance of good or evil. A rule-utilitarianism asserts that the morally right action is the one covered by a rule that if generally followed would produce the most favorable balance of good over evil. The difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism is that act-utilitarianism is the belief that it is fine to break a rule as long as it brings a greater good, while rule-utilitarianism