Is rule-utilitarianism preferable to act-utilitarianism Essay

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,

Inevitably, the opposing side to this argument (deontologists) refute this way of thinking by arguing that it could very easily lead us to “repugnant conclusions;” which in theory could be used to justify almost any action if the consequences of the situation worked out just right. This idea could be applied effectively to both act utilitarianism (an act is right if it results in as much good as any available alternative) and rule utilitarianism (an act is right if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of

Act Utilitarianism is a long standing and well supported philosophical argument that when boiled down to its most basic elements, can be described as creating “the greatest good for the greatest number” (122). Such was the sentiment of John Stuart Mill, one of act utilitarianism’s (also known as just utilitarianism) greatest pioneers, and promoters. Mills believed that his theory of always acting in a way that achieved the greatest net happiness was both superior to other philosophical theories and also more beneficial to the general public. However, as often occurs in the field of philosophy, there were many detractors to Mill’s ideas. Two specifically strong arguments are known as the doctrine of the swine, as well as man’s lack of time. While both certainly present valid arguments against Utilitarianism, neither is damning of the theory altogether.

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.

In this essay, I will argue that classical act utilitarianism can meet the injustice objection, but ultimately is weakened by the same argument. Classical Act utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism, a type of ethical theory which dictates that the rightness or wrongness of an action stems purely from the consequences of that action. In particular, classical act utilitarianism places ‘utility’, namely pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, and states that each action should be considered individually to decide which one results in the greatest aggregate utility. One of the main objections towards act utilitarianism is that of injustice. The basic argument is that since utilitarians focus on the net utility created by an action,

Moral theory of utilitarianism is siting the right and wrong only on outcomes of an action over another action. The theory site that the action is right if it bring greater amount of happiness and pleasure for the greater amount of mankind. The expected utility is concerning about people preference over the choices that uncertain result. The difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarianism care about the right moral action as a single act where the rule utilitarianism focus on the consequences of the action when the action repeated more than once.

Act Utilitarianism is the morally right act, for any situation, is that act which produce the greatest overall utility in its consequences. (“Ethical Choices” 2011). Act utilitarians believe that we need to understand what is right and what is wrong in order for us to make ethical decisions. In doing so, it tells us what we ought to do to promote the greatest amount of utility. In this view, we are focused on the scope, duration, intensity and probability of our actions. The scope tells us how many people are affected by certain actions; The duration tells us the amount of time that the effects our actions last; Intensity tells us how differently people are affected by our actions in that no two situation affect people the same; and, The probability tells us that we can’t predict our futures, but we can estimate how are actions affect others. In act utilitarianism we

The belief that morality is completely about “maximizing happiness” remains true to me from a certain point of view. If by “maximizing happiness” it is meant that we are supposed to maximize the happiness of all those around us and not just ourselves then yes, that statement would reflect my views of morality. However, when viewed through the scope of utilitarianism, the meaning of “maximizing happiness” becomes cloudy. While the theory of utilitarianism can also include taking actions that may maximize the pleasure, finances, or lack of suffering of a large group of people, it is not always the case. In most cases, the decisions that are made are often for selfish intentions. In my opinion, as long as our society embodies the “survival of

Act Utilitarianism theory states that everyone should be consider in order to achieve the greatest happiness for the majority of people and that ones actions and intentions should be morally right. Act Utilitarianism also tells us that we should evaluate the consequences of ones actions. We have to decide between our options and decide which one provides the greatest happiness for the majority.

Act utilitarianism works were the action of a person is considered right if the consequence in the end helps the most people. That means no matter what action the person performs if it helps the most people it will be the correct choice to make. A good example of this is that if harming your friend will save the lives of five other people than it the correct choice to make. It is part of the idea of utilitarianism thus is part of the idea of

According to utilitarianism, all the actions that an individual chooses to perform at any particular time must be geared toward achieving happiness. Utilitarianism also focuses on doing what is morally right always such that all the decisions that the individual decides to take are acceptable in the community. It also states that one should always consider fulfilling what is valuable to their life and those that would lead to happiness. An individual should then combine these thoughts with actions to produce acceptable and happy outcomes. According to Jeremy Bentham, he believed that utilitarianism would be maximized when people decided to do what is morally right. He combines the theory into what is valuable and the actions, for those things that are valuable, all revolve around happiness. The theory of Right Action then maximizes the utilitarianism theory as he suggests.

Act utilitarianism is generally described as believing that the best course of action is the action that would bring in the most net utility. “In their view, the principle of utility—do whatever will produce the best overall results—should be applied on a case by case basis. The right action in any situation is the one that yields more utility (i.e. creates more well-being) than other available actions.” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/). Rule utilitarianism is generally described as 1) an action that can be justified morally if it can be turned into a justifiable moral rule, 2) a moral rule can be justified if its moral code can create more utility than any other possible rules or no rules at all. According to act rule, we must judge a person

2. I will begin by defining important terms to understand what rule and act utilitarianism is. Utilitarianism is teleological. It is when “the moral worth of an act is judged according to the goodness and badness of its consequences” (Angeles, 326). The principle of utility according to Mill is when “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill). Hedonic Calculus is Bentham’s “method of choosing an action based on the amount of pleasure that the action would provide. The amount of pleasure was determined by its intensity, duration, propinquity, certainty, fecundity, and purity” (Angeles, 124). A simple term is utility, and it means pleasure or happiness. All of these terms will tie into act and rule utilitarianism.

There are two aspects with the utilitarian theory: one is the act utilitarian and the other is rule utilitarian. Act utilitarian believes the action of doing what is morally correct with the outcome of the greatest good for the majority of people. Let us first examine Act utilitarianism. Act utilitarians have a set framework of morals they follow overall, but relative to day-by-day situations their rules can alter. For instance, the child takes one for the team to benefit everyone else’s happiness. Act utilitarian would consider what the child is doing morally right. Another real life example similar to this ideology is if a father had to give up on buying certain items and eating fancy meals, so his 5 children could have what they want and be happy. This sacrifice the father makes is for the greater good because overall he makes 5 more people happy compared to just making himself (one person) happy.