Act Vs Rule Utilitarianism

Question 1

Act utilitarianism

Answer 1

-Claims a moral value of an action is calculated by considering its CONSEQUENCES-a consequentialist ethical theory
-Calculating the moral worth means adding up all the pleasure an act brings and subtracting the pain/suffering
-Any action is good if it brings about more pleasure than pain
Eg a mugger gains a phone- short term pleasure, victim will suffer greatly, over a long period of time, family and friends would be distresses= a lot of suffering so a bad act
-Bentham’s ‘utility calculus’’- helps calculate moral worth

Question 2

Rule utilitarianism

Answer 2

-Cites some of the issues for act utilitarianism:
Long term consequences can never be known
It takes too long to calculate the moral worth
The theory leads to counter-intuitive results (killing, sacrificing an innocent person for the masses)
-Believes it overcomes these issues; argues you should follow general rules- what Mill calls ‘SECONDARY PRINCIPLES’- such as ‘don’t kill’, ‘don’t steal’
-An act is good if it follows a suitable rule and a rule is good if its one that will increase happiness

Question 3

Criticism of Rule utilitarianism

Answer 3

• Some may argue that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism; most basic rules are too general and have legitimate exceptions
• ‘Don’t lie’ is a rule- but ‘Don’t lie unless to a potential murderer’ is a better one-even better is ‘Don’t lie unless to a potential murderer, or to partners when they ask if you like their new haircuts’
• Every time there is a new set if cases where lying may produce more happiness- we could make another amendment
• SMART argues, taken to its logical conclusion, this would end up with a version of act utilitarianism, but with rules that apply to very specific sets of circumstances