Rule And Act Consequentialism Analysis

Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system

The theory that we should only do the actions that bring about the best consequences is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialism is correct because if the action taken creates the most possible good, then that action must be the right action. Consequentialism leads to the right action because the right action is the

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.

Sophisticated consequentialism is a hybrid, as it adopts the ideological tenants of both modalities of consequentialism and allows for the nuance of personal relationships to at times, override the adherence to a presumed action based upon the tenants of consequentialism. The sophisticated consequentialist may accept the reality that saving their one true love, is ideologically less beneficial than saving the three strangers, however the consequentialist would also take into the account of their personal feelings and the perceived total good that they may experience with that person over a lifetime as more beneficial than saving a higher quantity of strangers. At this, the sophisticated consequentialist is adopting the subjective consequentialist view of the intent to save one’s love, and experience more moments with them and bring about a higher amount of happiness than saving those three strangers. In this, I believe that sophisticated consequentialism is giving credence and importance to the personal point of view, as a textbook definition of a consequentialist theory would point to saving the

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

Thus the former is morally culpable for the actions of the latter by virtue of being the cause of the action. Opponents of consequentialism argue that negative responsibility, and the consequentialist doctrine as a whole, is unacceptable because it reduces an agent to merely “a locus of causal intervention in the world.” Instead of being people, agents are no more than origin points of cause and effect, and their integrity is forfeit as a result. Although Williams dedicates a significant portion of his paper to illustrating the problem of integrity, he offers no defense against it. In fact, he acknowledges that life-defining projects and integrity exist, agrees that it is absurd to expect an agent to discard them in order to be moral, and then departs from the problem of integrity without further discussion.

Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.

After reading Jim and the Indians I feel like Jim should just kill one of the Indians himself so that the rest of the Indians will be let off. Consequentialism is holding consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Also, consequentialism is do good as much and as often as you can. Consequentialism is primanly non-prescriptive meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. To know whether an action is morally required, we need to do four things the first one is adding up all the benefits it produces. The second one is adding up all the harm it causes and the third one is determining

Morality, thus, should not be contingent upon conditions or expectations of reciprocity nor should it exclude personal feelings such as love, as it is particularly this characteristic that prevents one from alienation. Railton believes that subjective consequentialism, which requires one to perform before-action deliberate to yield the best consequence, is what produces alienation causing not only “psychological affliction” on oneself, but also to others (137). So, when moral actions become the means for yet another end, one is not acting for the good as an end in itself. Acknowledging the misconception–utilitarian understanding–of consequentialism, Railton expounds upon “sophisticated consequentialism,” which is objective consequentialism in form, but does not endorse subjective consequentialism, leaving space for other forms of decision-making such as love (153). In essence, sophisticated consequentialism is developing dispositions that, ultimately, lead to good, so that one can “allocate” time efficiently, and at the same time able to justify or judge one’s action based on universal morality

Ethics is all about principles of right conduct. Under the umbrella term, consequentialism has a much more specific moral theory known as max act utilitarianism. Max act utilitarianism is one of the most well known and influential theories that provides the best notion for the theory of right conduct. After a brief explanation of act utilitarianism, the argument of this paper will then seek to favor why act utilitarianism provides a plausible theory of right conduct.

Mabbott, a philosopher who published a book about punishment, argued that in the new rules paradigm the governing distinction should be between a practice or an institution or a rule and an occasion of applying that rule (Martin, 2008). Mabbott explained that rules or the practice itself is justified on utilitarian grounds. Mabbott stated, “Rules are justified by the good results which would follow if they were generally obeyed,” (Martin, 2008). The general adoption of and conformity of the rule in question would do more good, then would the omission of the rule and of the conduct conforming to it, and it would do more good than would the deployment of an alternative rule (Martin, 2008). John Rawls has similar viewpoints except he regards the relevant rules as constitutive and thereby gives the particular activity its structure (Martin, 2008). In both Rawls and Mabbotts accounts of rule utilitarianism, they describe the main parameters of a rule, an institution, or a kind of activity. They also state that the rules can be assessed by considering whether they would be beneficial on the whole, if conduct generally conformed to them, as measured against a situation in which that rule was omitted altogether or another rule was substituted in its place (Martin, 2008). Mabbott and Rawls both asserted that once a rule is established, as justified, one is to conform to it; further appeal to general utilitarian considerations in individual applications on particular occasions and Mabbott believes it is than surrendered while Rawls believes it is no longer open (Martin,

1. Consequentialist moral theories see the moral rightness or wrongness of actions as a function of their results. If the consequences are sufficiently good, the action is right; if they are sufficiently bad, the action is wrong. However, nonconsequentialist theories see other factors as also relevant to the determination of right and wrong.

In this essay, I will explain whether act or rule utilitarianism is superior and why. I will begin by defining important terms like utilitarianism, the principle of utility, and hedonic calculus. Then I will move on to defining act utilitarianism and its strengths and weaknesses. I will then do the same with rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule is superior to act, in the sense that it is more relevant to society as a whole, and it has more benefits for society. Rule utilitarianism is superior to act utilitarianism because it has less gray area, it is more stable with morality, and it has the flexibility to be general or specific.

There are three main terms I will be referencing in this paper. The first is consequentialism. Consequentialism is, at heart, a framework