Can rule-consequentialism give a better account of our moral obligations that typical act consequentialism?

Question 1

PAra 1: OUTLINE Difference between two

Answer 1

∙ Act: Typically understood as the rightness of the action depends on the maximising of good results
⁃ Principal of utility applied on a case by case basis

∙ RULE: Upholding certain rules that are chosen for the reason they produce good results
⁃ Law of Large Numbers, we know what decisions generally produce good results, operating on an individual level can obscure that

Question 2

PARA 2: BENEFITS OF RULE CONSEQUENTIALISM

Answer 2

∙ On an act basis, it would be hard to gather all the necessary information before making a decision
∙ Provides system of trust and reliability
⁃ Knowing a doctor wouldn’t harvest your organs for the benefit of 5 others
⁃ Enshrined values

Question 3

PARA 3: CRITICISMS OF RULE CONSEQUENTIALISM

Answer 3

∙ Rule Worship: Can it really be called consequentialism when it doesn’t necessarily produce the best results
⁃ Worshipping the rules is really just deontology at that point
∙ Act cons. should be better equipped to field differing circumstances, rules often are rigid and inelegant

Question 4

PARA 4: RESPONSE TO CRITICISM

Answer 4

∙ Strives to produce greater goods that occur just through singular interactions
⁃ Never lying produces generalised truthfulness which is better than occasion wherein lying would be better
⁃ Has an overarching attempt to pursue the good, not just immediate concerns
⁃ Act consequentialism is hard to predict accurately, Law of Large Numbers, can see climate but not weather