Essay on Is Mill a Rule Utilitarian?

John Stuart Mill developed his own approach to Utilitarianism called ‘Rule Utilitarianism’. There are some similarities with Christian ethics which lie in his doctrine. Firstly, Mill says that there should be general rules which people

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

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

If our secondary principles are prone to revision and even deletion then either Mill is an act-utilitarian who allows use of rules that tend to maximize utility to guide our action on simple, or at least morally commonplace, decisions but holds the ultimate test of moral rightness to be the application of the Utilitarian Principle to actions; or he is a rule-utilitarian that says the criteria for determining rightness of action may be wrong, revised, or discarded.

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

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.

In this paper I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia disproves Mill’s utilitarian view that pleasure is the “greatest good.” The purpose of this paper is to contrast Aristotle’s and Mills views on the value of happiness and its link to morality. First I will describe Aristotle’s model of eudaimonia. Then I will present Mill’s utilitarian views on happiness and morality. Lastly, I will provide a counterargument to Mill’s utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian model of eudaimonia.

I agree with the main components of Rule Utilitarianism. I find it natural for it to be plausible, and it is well designed to that very fact. I also find favor with the element of fairness, that a decision is for the benefit of a group rather than partial to only the individual himself. The system of itself is very clear, you greatest quality of happiness, or pleasure. It also isn’t as arbitrary as Act Utilitarianism, but still allows for modifications and adaptations.

This theory focuses less on making sure that the action follows rules and norms and more on just doing what needs to be done or what the person believes is best to get the outcome that creates the most good. For an example in current events, President Donald Trump recently fired the United States’ FBI Director James Comey without consulting with the people who were supposed to be aware of the situation before making a decision. In this case, Trump disregarded the “rules” or guidelines and did what he thought was the best thing, for him or the USA, or both. Whether it was right or wrong for the director to be fired was probably ignored, but because he thought that the best result would be achieved through that, he acted on it. Act Utilitarianism focuses more on individual actions but is criticized because it permits bad moral theory. For example, if James Comey really did not deserve to be terminated from his position, a utilitarian point of view would not care as long as it yielded an overall good outcome for everyone else. This leaves room for some very bad choices to be made

Rule utilitarianism is compared to act utilitarianism by the way it promotes happiness. A rule utilitarian is concerned more with the rule, yet by pleasing people. On the other hand, act utilitarianism is concerned with individual acts. For example, being honest to an individual will generate happiness.

Mill also states that an existence with the possibility of happiness must be “…to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation (234)”. Utilitarianism not only focuses on the attainment of happiness, but the prevention of pain and unhappiness. (230)

Significantly, Mill’s act utilitarianism is concerned with an action’s consequence, not intentions, and differs from Jeremy Bentham’s version of the theory, in that it is focused on making the total amount of happiness largest, instead of maximizing the number of people who are happy. For evaluating morality, Mill was a proponent of using a scientific method that consisted of asking a question and making observations, before evaluating the results to form a testable hypothesis.

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.

Mill's Utilitarianism presupposes that human beings do have a concept for general well being, and that is genuinely by nature good and willfully ethical. It is this generalization that spawns for these sanctions that he has addressed, and it is the role of the good nature of man that determines the worth of his actions. This is also the pivot in Mill's mechanics that is probably most argued upon. Kant, Neibhor, and Plato would have had much to say on Mill's assumption of the natural goodness of mankind and his given instinct to do good. If impartiality and equity are what good will and duty bring forth, Mill has provided a basis within utilitarianism that reinforces this.

There are two types of Utilitarianism; “act” and ‘rule”. An act utilitarian uses thought process. This means that every decision made must be well thought out before coming into a conclusion. This mean in depth calculation or solution to the problem. For example, a person wants to plan a trip for his honey moon, he/she has a long list of places they want to enjoy their soul mates with. Instead of jumping into a quick decision, an act utilitarian would sit down and calculate out the utility of all possible decision before picking which they desire to go to. While on the other side, a rule utilitarian uses the principles of utility to create set of rules and regulations by which they live in. Rule utilitarian’s are not incapable of being patient and go through each set of possibilities and outcomes. They just don’t see the reason to waste precious time on it. For example, a rule utilitarian, would have simple rules such as, do not kill, do not steal etc. The difference between Bentham and Mill was that Bentham was an act utilitarian and Mill was a rule utilitarian. Some critics believe that utilitarianism is unsatisfactory theory due to the fact that it may have some disadvantages. Utilitarianism only believes in happiness and it is the only thing that have intrinsic worth. People might do one wrong thing just to produce happiness. The ends don’t justify the means, for example, if someone kills a healthy person just to provide organs to help five other