Rule And Act Utilitarianism Essay

Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.

Rule utilitarianism creates rules that would lead to the general overall happiness of individuals involved and an act is said to be moral when it conforms to those rule. This would mean that an act can be moral in accordance with rule utilitarianism even if the action does not bring about overall happiness, but just because it conformed to a rule that, if the circumstances were different, would have brought about overall happiness.

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.

In order to determine how different, the act and rule utilitarianism are, I will analyze it by applying them in the following scenario. Let’s imagine, you are a doctor in an oncology ward in a major city that is strapped for financial and material resources. One evening, two patients are admitted to the hospital. One patient is suffering from a seemingly incurable form of

Person B: There are two different kinds: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism, but first let’s get clear about the general idea which has always been very influential in the way we think about ethical issues. The main idea is that “it is morally right for a person to do act X if and only if X produces more good than bad for everyone affected by the act, including that person”. Otherwise, the act would be wrong.

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

There are two main forms of this theory; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism judges the rightness of an action by following a set of rules. These rules are set so that they provide the best possible outcome for everyone. For example, a rule utilitarian would say it’s always wrong to lie because, in general, telling the truth brings about the optimal consequences. A utilitarian applies these rules universally and without exception.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

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.

Act utilitarianism is based on specific acts in different situations. Act utilitarians act in a way that will always bring the most pleasure to the most amount of people, and each person is responsible for making their own decision about what is morally right in each case (Burnor and Raley, 116-118). A rule utilitarian would say that society should follow a certain set of hypothetical rules that would lead to the most pleasure. The rules need to follow the optimific social rule, which states that if everyone in a society follows this rule, then it would lead to the most happiness. Acts that follow the rules are

Using Rule Utilitarianism, it applies the Principle of Utility to moral rules. To analysis Linda situation we have to come with an appropriate moral rule. Linda has two alternatives either hire Mary or don’t hire Mary. If she hires Mary, then a moral rule could be “If I can hire someone who knows the current Medicare regulations, has the skills and knowledge I need, and can fill the vacant position, then I should do so”. This will benefit the workers who have to pitch in and cover the workload. Linda can have someone that has the qualifications she needs and doesn’t need to look for more people. The harm that this rule will cause is that Peter might end up leaving because he rarely speaks and Mary wants a lot of social involvement. Linda doesn’t

My overall philosophical view for the discussion about the “right to keep what you earned”, (Mackinnon and Fiala, 2015), can be altruistic, but I believe my view is more of the idea of Rule Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism described in the book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues “utilitarian theory that focuses on postulating general rules that will tend to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number”, (Mackinnon and Fiala, 2015). One idea that I found useful to branch off Rule Utilitarianism is the root word known as utility. Utility means the most satisfaction or in another word to describe it by, is happiness, (McConnell, Brue, Flynn, 2015 McGraw-Hill). Although I have a belief that if someone works hard anyone can earn what they deserve in the end, however, I also believe that taxes should be paid no matter where the funds go

2. To begin, I will be defining both act and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, you determine the morality of an act by measuring the pleasures and pains for a specific situation Angeles 326). Act utilitarians take into consideration only those affected in the specific situation. However, rule utilitarianism determines the morality of an act “according to the good or bad consequences that ensue from following a general moral rule of conduct…” (Angeles 326). Good examples of those general moral rules are phrases like, never steal or never tell a lie. In any situation, people can use either act or rule utilitarianism to determine the correct course of action.

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

The rule utilitarianism looks at the rules of actions which are potential and looks at what would happen if a certain