Bernard Williams Vs 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 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

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

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

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

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

It’s defining feature of the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness or wrongness of actions. Act-utilitarianism may prove to be most appropriate in substantiating the rationale of nurse Hathaway and her decision to break her promise of discretion. Act-utilitarianism is rooted in the belief of doing good and keeping ones word (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). However, the principle recognizes circumstances when overall consequences better serve everyone by deviating from established guidelines.

There are, clearly, some very strong objections to Utilitarianism. Do these objections (taken together ) amount to a

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.

If he does not take the job, it is decidedly worse for the general good as he would be giving up the job to someone with high aspirations to develop the field of chemical and biological warfare. This is a danger to society. In taking the job, George is providing his family with a healthier living and also, as a result of his lack of enthusiasm, he is slowing down the progress of chemical and biological warfare projects. In this way, utilitarianism is showing that integrity is meaningless. These similar ideas are expressed in Williams' second example.

It might be helpful to begin our evaluation about utilitarianism by considering a moral dilemma. I’ll then propose an answer under the utilitarian framework and respond to some of our moral concerns by offering alternative explanations. Then I’ll try to identify the weaknesses of utilitarianism by showing its confusion on moral responsibility.

A rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation: individual actions or rules?”

However, the idea of utilitarianism is narrowed down into two different types: act and rule. Act utilitarianism is a theory that states that a person’s act is morally right “if and only if” it produces as much happiness as any other actions a person could take at that time. An example of this is going to the movies versus going to the orphanage to do charity service. According to act utilitarianism, if you were to choose from these actions, going to the orphanage to do charity service is morally right because you can produce “more overall happiness in the world”.

Often, people believe that morality is subjective and depends only on people’s desires or sincere beliefs. Act utilitarianism, however, provides a method for showing which moral beliefs are true and which are false.