Act Utilitarianism And Rule Utilitarianism

Two different forms of utilitarianism are described in our text. The first is called act utilitarianism. According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected (p.60).

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

In this paper I will explain how Act Utilitarianism, pure Rule Utilitarianism, and pseudo-Rule Utilitarianism would differ in their reasoning regarding the case of Al and Betty. With each method of reasoning, I evaluate the situation without background or moral assumptions of each character, and then separately with the assumption that while Al was away Betty became chronically ill and has one day left to live.

Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism are the two different forms of utilitarianism that Shaw and Barry distinguish. Utilitarianism refers to the greatest happiness principle for the most amounts of people. Act utilitarianism “states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected. If its consequences bring more net good than those of any alternative course of action, then this action is the right one and the one we should perform” (Shaw and Barry, pg.60). I look at this

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule 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

This may be considered a more refined version of Act Utilitarianism as it addresses some shortcoming of the earlier ethical theory by universalizing the situation. In this regard, rather than base the ethics of the situation on whether it will result in beneficence for the greatest number of people, it instead bases its ethics on the gain in happiness or loss if everyone worldwide carried out the action that is being judged. As applied to the subject issue, Rule Utilitarianism would ask, “If every corporation/company/organization paid subjected their workers to poor working conditions and poor, unfair wages, would it result in a net loss or gain of happiness?”

Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, judges each action individually and decides on its rightness by the resulting consequences. This approach can give situational leniency when needed as long as the action brings about the optimal results. As opposed to a rule utilitarian, an act utilitarian would say that lying is the right thing to do if it brings the best total outcome for those

Act Utilitarianism determines a morally right act as the one that produces “the greatest overall utility in its consequences.” (EC, p. 111) In Case 1 (EC, p. 124), it could be argued that Act Utilitarianism would support an individual purchasing a hybrid car due to the overall utility of the consequence outweighing the disutility. However, Act Utilitarianism has weaknesses to accompany its strengths when assessing whether an act is morally right or wrong. One problem of Act Utilitarianism, shown in Case 1 (EC, p. 124), is that it is irrational to expect people to calculate all of the possible consequences and the scope, intensity, duration, or possibilities of buying or not buying a hybrid car. The buyer is expected to scope out and recognize every individual that is affected by his/her act of buying a car. They are also expected to assess the period of time of which the effect of their act lasts and how strong or weak the force of that act is. It’s unrealistic to assume that a buyer will place everyone else’s preferences before his/her or predict the consequences of such action in order to create an overall happiness. The theory does present a solution to strengthen this weakness, which is the ‘rules of thumb.’ Buyers will most likely not purchase a hybrid car while following the ‘rules of thumb’ law due to the immediate pleasure of purchasing a cheaper and more recognizable car. However, its obvious that this solution does not always produce what Act Utilitarianism would

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

Utilitarianism is also divided into two sub-categories called Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. While these both agree with the core principle of Utilitarianism, they differ in their ideas of the utility of individual actions. Act Utilitarian theorists agree that every action we do should create the greatest utility, and the principle of utility should be used depending on individual cases. Rule Utilitarian theorists focus on the possibility of moral rules, and using these rules to judge the morality of actions.

Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.

Utilitarianism is based on maximizing human welfare, it is seen as the only way to determines the rightness of actions (Duignan, 2015). Furthermore, theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts (Duignan, 2015). Utilitarianism is said to be a strict relationship between the rightness of an action and the amount of pleasure it promotes and pain it prevents. However, in utilitarianism the only thing that gages morality of an action is whether it produces the greatest happiness ( McMillan, n.d.). Furthermore, utilitarian’s think that the moral rightness of an action is dependant of weather it promotes rightness. Rule utilitarian’s on the other hand, favor moral actions that are backed by moral rules. Utilitarianism is seen as morally demanding, as it requires increased moral choices. Rule utilitarianism down side is that it can be seen as rule

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

What this paper intends to discuss is utilitarianism, that is, the consequentialist outlook that says, “Do as much good as you can” (119). Utilitarianism is an appropriate system of normative ethics, but because the scope of utilitarianism is vast, it will be important to pin down the ideas of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. This paper will ultimately show that rule utilitarianism is the more salient aspect of consequentialism. My claim is that rule utilitarianism is most optimific by comparison to act utilitarianism. The paper will call upon examples from Alan Dershowitz, John Stuart Mill, etc.