The Pros And Cons Of Act-Utilitarianism

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

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