Difference Between Epicorcianism And Act-Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that states something is considered to be right when it does the most good for most the most amount of people (Duignan 2015). This theory doesn’t consider the feelings of the individual; it considers the feelings of the majority (Duignan 2015). Utilitarianism is very different from relativism, which takes into account the totality of circumstances, this philosophical theory states that what is considered to be right or wrong can vary depending on people and society (Rachels 2015).

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).

Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most

Pojman provides many reasons as to why rule-utilitarianism is better than act-utilitarianism and in this chapter, while there are criticisms against both act and rule utilitarianism, he defends rule utilitarianism. According to Pojman, unlike act-utilitarianism, rule-utilitarianism satisfies the purposes of ethics, gives a clear decision procedure for moral conduct, focuses on helping people in reducing suffering in the world and offers a solution to the problem of posterity. In all of the examples that Pojman provides, act-utilitarianism makes a quick decision without thinking about any rules, just about the greatest result, while rule-utilitarianism makes a thoughtful

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

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.

“Utilitarianism is the view that the supreme principle of morality is to act so as to produce as much happiness as possible, each person counting equally” (Mill, 114). By ‘happiness’, this includes anything that is pleasurable and free of pain. Simply put, utilitarianism is the theory that an action is right, as long as it produces the greatest good for the most number of people (Peetush). The central point to this theory is that one must consider every consequence before taking any action. There are two classical forms of utilitarianism; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. “Rule utilitarianism is the idea that an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would

Utilitarianism is based off of the idea that actions are right if they are beneficial and support the majority. When a person is faced with a decision, he or she must think about the consequences in terms of pleasure versus pain. That person has a moral obligation to figure out which outcome is the better one. Majority of this paper will discuss act utilitarianism versus rule utilitarianism and different philosophical objections to each. Act utilitarianism is best described as actions that lead to the best consequence in that moment. For instance, a professor passes someone to get into medical school, even if he or she didn’t do all the work. The professor’s judgement is that the person would be a great doctor. Likewise, the student did

AU is an ethical theory credited largely to Jeremy Bentham. AU attempts to assign every action a value, or utility. The principle of utility means the “principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which is appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question”

A Rule utilitarian argues that following some rules leads to the greatest good will, and this will have better consequences overall. For example, if you needed to do something that was morally right and you were driving down the street and there is a red light when you’re wife is crying on the phone saying she might give birth then under rule utilitarianism you would have to wait for the light to turn green. This is where rule UT can fall into AU because taking the red light can potentially save two lives and produce the most

Both utilitarian thinkers offer interesting and compelling theories to support their end goals of increasing pleasure and reducing pain. The methods conceptualized by each thinker to reach this goal are different and unique, it could be claimed that both are teleological since they argue that the moral character of an action is determined by the final result. Act utilitarianism claims that an act is deemed as right or wrong based on the ramifications of that action thus, the right action is the one that produces the most happiness or pleasure regardless of anything else . Rule utilitarianism claims that an action is deemed as right or wrong according whether the consequences will hurt anyone else thus, the right action is the one that produces happiness for all members of a specific society .

utilitarianism evaluates actions one at a time, saying that an action is good if it produces the greatest

Utilitarianism is the theory that one ought to maximize the happiness and minimize the unhappiness of as many people as possible. (Rosenstand p. G-6) Though, act and rule utilitarianism both aim in doing this, the main difference between the two, the act utilitarian focuses on the single act, while the rule utilitarian focuses not only on the single act, but how the current act will effect similar and repeated acts in the future.

The appeal of utilitarian or more specifically act-utilitarian is the structured and logical method of thinking about ethics. Most importantly, the logic of the moral theory aligns with my view. I believe that maximizing the goods even if it requires sacrificing some adverse situations, would lead to a more favorable result. Furthermore, I prefer to break difficult issues that may not have an exact answer